It is saying that science is a subset of "magic". the subset is "the part that actually works". I would argue that magic that doesnt work isnt actually magic at all. For magic to be magic it has to work as magic contains 2 parts. "The affect" and "the lack of understanding from the person who experiences it". Magic that doesnt work loses the affect there making it "not magic"Analyze the validity of that sentence.
So in essence since science is a subset of magic that works and magic that doesnt work isnt magic, then using math here science is equal to magic as the part that isnt magic was just subtracted and all we have left is science is nothing more then magic.
Thereoms can be used to prove anything when you create the statements that theorems are based off of
edit: if science IS nothing more then magic then magic can be more, but not always. Then "science" is subset of magic. Now what the subset is is still up in the air. So this statement is valid since science is based on understanding which means that it can be more, but may actually be equal to science. We will always have people who dont understand so we cant have science without magic as the thing that is science will always start with magic.
Magic according to webster:
1mag·ic noun \ˈma-jik\
Definition of MAGIC
1a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : enchantment
Bolded is the key word in this definition.