IDK, but when I read this part, it kinda seemed like you were saying the "cake" can ONLY be general and it can't be particular, but maybe I just didn't read it properly.
Sorry for the delayed reply.
Why assume "this is how magic works" instead of assuming "this is the only way we know how to do magic today because a lot of knowledge was lost to history, and we don't know how to do it properly anymore".
I didn't claim this is how magic works, but, I did say that if there is a type of magic which is like a recipe. That sort of magic when it works, is not going to produce a specific result which is measurable, and repeatable like science. Then I typed several paragraphs where I tried to describe what I meant by "recipe". I explained the underlying principle which produces the effect. I explained why specific repeatable results would not be expected from this principle. Finally at the end, I was careful to note that this sort of magic is distinguished from working with angels, demons, and spirits.
I don't know where you get that, if anything my position has always been that the things that people claim are impossible are actually possible.
It seems that way because of the choices being made on whom is a credible source for information. It seems as if you have an impossibly high standard for credibility among practioners, but, an absolute faith in the credibility of books that you have read about magic. If the same standards are not being applied for the books you're reading to the practioners you're interacting with, then it will seem "You have convinced yourself that magic is simultaneously infallible and impossible."
If you are reading a book which promises particular repeatable results via a magical recipe, it doesn't make sense to assume that the book is literally true without evidence if the practioner is assumed to be literally false without evidence.
If I read a book where there is a spell for invisibility while being pursued which involves a recipe of an incantation and removing the left shoe and throwing it over the back. I'm not going to believe that the author knows what they're talking about. At least when it comes to spell casting. Maybe that part was added by another author, maybe it was embellished, maybe it's incomplete, maybe it's a snare for the unintiated. I don't know. All I know is, if you or I say those words and fling our shoe over our backs, we're not going to literally become invisible while we're being pursued. Maybe-maybe something else will happen which mimics a sort of misdirection of the hunters in pursuit, but, I don't think anyone is going to expect literal invisibility.
One of the benefits of having a foundational understanding of the principles of magic is being able to read a book and filter it for what is literal, what is figruative, what is exaggerated, and what is false. Lacking that, imo, reading books on practical magic which are written like recipes are a fool's errand.
