Conventional wisdom sees a transition somewhere around the 17th century between ancient ‘science’ and the genuine article we know today. Astrology gave way to astronomy, alchemy to chemistry, and the old doctrines of ‘armchair philosophers’ were finally abandoned in favour of hypotheses that could be empirically tested. Galileo’s experiments on motion are a school-room paradigm of the modern scientific method, while Aristotle’s idea that stones fall because they want to get to the centre of the Earth, and fire rises because it belongs in the sky, is typical of the unscientific approach.
you can see the tailing vehicles smashing into smoke-obscured obstacles, spinning blindly off the pavement, or driving off a cliff.
Stones DO want to get to the center of the earth -- that's what the pull of gravity does, and that's what the more meritocratic field of physics eventually realized.
Fire DOES want to get to the sky -- this was shown, again, by the meritocrats studying physics. Warm air rises, cold air sinks. But hold on a minute. Any climber or hiker or backcountry skier or alpine runner or bicyclist who plays in the mountains will tell you: temperatures drop as you gain elevation.
Wait, is observing this also some kind of magical thinking?
Blah blah blah. Just because you actually composed an essay-length gathering of facticity it doesn't mean your essay is clarifying anything for us. As with Jack Crow, you are using all manner of logical fallacy in your argument. Confirmation bias and appeals to authority are your biggest flaws.
I'm sure your audience Brights agree, though. That magical thinking is definitely what gets Richard Dawkins' nose out of joint, so it must be an existential enemy ripe for the purging.