So, criminal forensics is "metaphysical" again. Although eyewitness testimony isn't. Even though there's a wealth of evidence showing that physical forensic evidence of "past, unobserved" events is typically MORE factually dependable than eyewitness testimony.
Also, you never answered on this "past, unobservable" criteria: Are Newton's Laws of Motion, and the many other scientific laws which lack any directional preference as to time, "metaphysical" or not?
Evos merely want to include metaphysical 'explanations' as though they are *facts* because it allows the deception to be continued.
No. Just the opposite, in fact. We've consistently distinguished facts, on the one hand, and explanations of facts on the other. Your constant wavering over your criteria for what is "metaphysical" suggests that your unable to keep the fact/explanation distinction in your mind.
Sorry you got confused again and got it backwards.
There has been no wavering on my part, just real and feigned confusion on yours. But I understand that you have to pretend that the problem is on my end, otherwise you would have to question your beliefs. Oh well.