So we have magic in D&D, and we have D&D's implied setting. We have a continuum of responses on how to reconcile magic and how it affects the daily existence of our fantasy constructs:
On one end, magic doesn't alter the fundamental fabric of an implied setting. This could be accomplished in a number of ways, but at its extreme, the affect of magic on the setting is completely ignored on the macro level. Society runs like our anachronistic notions of how medieval life might have been.
One justification here could be that magic has no net affect on the history and development of a setting. For example, Alexander the Great gets a Raise Dead on 323 BC, but a weak later an assassin hits him with a Disintegrate spell, so the whole affair is a wash. Or use any other justification one desires.
The other end of the spectrum, easily enough, is a setting that is devised, designed, and developed with the affect of magic in mind. For example, continual light spells function as medieval gas or electric lights, so work can be performed at night, leading to a more advanced industrial capability, etc etc etc.
Your mileage may vary, feel free to pick any point on that continuum. I hope this is all very obvious.
This campaign leans heavily towards the "no net affect" aspect of magic. I want to play in a pseudo-historical 17th century, so why would I want to drastically alter the social and technological fabric of the world? But I also want to play D&D, so magic is definitely in. So there's your justification for why I hate science. Or magic. I can't even tell at this point.