I propose that the environment is capable of sustaining magical reactions, but cannot generate the creative effort to do so on its own.

1. Evidence
>we can imagine it
This implies that some part of the environment is able to interface with our minds. Imagination is evidence of at least one type of phenomena, which is not limited by modeling restrictions.

2. Hypothesis
>phenomena require forms
Simply, there is no requirement for magic other than a model to do it under. The moment one is imagined, the environment allows us to perform magic under it. You can see how this would make it difficult to demonstrate complex magic for a novice practitioner, since they are operating without a model to stabilize the relevant forces.

3. Formulation
>knowledge informs manifestation
We are able to witness consistent behavior in the environment, so this new notion should not surprise us when observed. There must be a scientific manner in which to explore any observable phenomena, so the model that is known in advance of an experiment will be correct by nature. Where natural science seeks to construct an organic explanation, magical science must jump directly to its goal for us to exercise the notion of self consistent model.

4. Affirmation
>non-continuing phenomena cannot be taken as evidence
An unmodeled effect, however magical it may seem upon first observation, must be rejected as evidence of further magic. There are innumerable natural explanations for an observed phenomenon, both during and after the fact, and it is our job to mediate an empiric notion of how these occur. For example, making a ball appear out of thin air is not evidence of any model of magic, even instant object creation, if an examination after the fact reveals that it is made of ordinary matter with no special properties. For similar reasons, filming such an event would not create more evidence than the fact a video being produced.

5. Implications
>no singular form of evidence can act as all evidence
For