That is a really interesting thought ^^
However, there are a couple of things I would like to add:
the first one is regarding the idea of science not being developed in a world with magic. This idea makes me remember what Tolkien said in his essay “On Fairy tales”. He said that every world needs a set of natural –and, sometimes, also magical- rules to work. It is completely possible to develop science in a world with magic, especially the sort of science more related to everyday live. I guess there were midwifes, rural doctors, herbalists, builders, gunsmiths, astronomers, etc… in the Enchanted Forest, since we only have heard about 4 magicians, but people seem to live without their constant assistance. Besides that, magic has its rules, its limitations; those magicians had also part of Scientifics, they know about the rules of the world and about the rules of magic, and how to make them fit together. (A fact that allows the “debate” between Dr. Frankenstein and Rumplestiltskin as equals)
The second one is regarding the evolution of science from superstition. Actually, it was like a circle: in the Ancient Greek –well, and in Mesopotamia, in Egypt…- the philosophers were actually scientifics, the current difference between “those who think” and “those who practice science” didn’t exist. A doctor was also a mathematician, astronomer, lawyer and poet. That was the time in which the atom was “discovered”, and some rules of physics and mathematics set, for instance. With the raise of Roman Empire, the Barbarian Invasions, the raise of Christianism, and finally the Fall of the Empire, all that knowledge was lost until the Renaissance and was finally fulfil during the Enlightment.
But the fact is that those so called “magicians” who lived before the scientific method were not superstitious people who wanted to turn iron into gold… most of the scientific practices were punished (the last Inquisitorial trials were in 1821. In the same year in which Newton born, Galileo was burn for saying that Earth moves around the Sun and not the opposite way. And more or less at the time of Newton the “Tableau de l’inconstance des mauvais anges et demons” was written by the inquisitor Pierre de Lancre, and also the “Malleus Maleficarum”. Both of them very useful books… to find and kill witches and other dangerous persons) another instance is that one of the most famous places to learn magic was the Black School of the Sorbonne in Paris. It was said that the Devil himself taught his pupils the dark arts. The fact was that there were some students who were not satisfied by what they learnt at the University and wanted more. They wanted real science and not “magic”. The paradox is that those pupils of “the Devil” have been recorded as the magicians.
Just a couple of additions, I enjoy your reflection. ^^^
Conclusion –my opinion, sure- no matter how much Dr. Frankenstein and Rumplestiltskin want to discuss about the differences of their respective arts, they are two sides of the same coin: knowledge. The difference lies in perception: Magic is seen as dangerous and unreliable while science is seen as honourable and reliable.