This is one of the oldest debates in the magic community. Should there be a disclaimer, should the spectator make up their own mind, etc.
Magic does not intrinsically promote woo, but the opportunity is there, due to the nature of the art.
A lot of magicians in the olden days had a deliberate mystic or exotic image, like an "oriental" costume or a turban or what have you. They were generally so over the top as to preclude any serious belief in a paranormal source for the sleight of hand.
Yes, several magicians have denied sleight of hand and promoted woo. But the most vocal defenders of rational thought have very often been magicians, from Reginald Scot to Randi.
I believe a bit of healthy exposure of minor conjuring techniques, along with children's magic kits, give lay people enough knowledge to understand it's all performance art, while keeping the more important tactics and moves secret.
A magic show is a perfect opportunity to have a talk with your children or friends about the total lack of evidence for the paranormal. I personally believe there is absolutely nothing unethical about the art itself.
Do vampire stories promote woo? Or only certain authors? I think it's perfectly fine to play with the concepts. The issue lies with the author or performer, not the art.
I would even say that it's perfectly fine to play the woo angle during a show. As long as the performer either has a disclaimer, or is clear about the nature of reality and conjuring when interviewed out of character. I have much less respect for those who keep the line blurry at all times.
I look at a guy like Max Maven, with the demonologist look and the mystic image. He certainly does not promote woo, though he seems to walk a finer line at times. I think this is acceptable. The Geller "I'm not a magician" approach is another story altogether. Just my opinion.
The debate usually revolves around specific performers and specific points. The art of conjuring itself is not on trial and it shouldn't be.
