Unless there is a witness who can testify, the event is past and unobservable.
And yes, drawing conlcusions from *facts* is metaphysical because it involved 'abstract thought'. The only way you can avoid this is to observe 'concrete evidence' (a fact).
I have explained this previously. It should not be a surprise to you.
And 'all of science' would not be metaphysical, as you claim. If an event can be repeated and observed (I drop the ball and it will hit the ground), it is not metaphysical. It is a concrete fact.
If you are opining on the positions of the planets millions of years ago, you are clearly applying abstract thought to a current observation (where the planet is today) and the conclusion is metaphysical.
Got it?
So if there is a witness to a past event, that witnessed-past-event somehow mutates into a present and observable event? (And note, eyewitness testimony is universally regarded as less reliable than physical, circumstantial evidence. Why do you suppose that is?)
And yes, drawing conlcusions from *facts* is metaphysical because it involved 'abstract thought'. The only way you can avoid this is to observe 'concrete evidence' (a fact).
A knife, a gun, a footprint, a fingerprint -- all are "concrete evidence" ("facts" as you would have it). How does observation of these "facts" mean anything in the absence of inference?
A fossilized dinosaur bone is "concrete evidence." Of what use is this "fact"?
In short, how do you "avoid abstract thought" by observing these "facts"? And of what use are these "facts" in the absence of abstract thought?
Of course, in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is the least trustworthy. Anyone studying law enforcement will experience a demonstration of how eyewitness testimony diverges from videotape of the same event.
But the main problem with your position is the assertion that testimony is somehow more "real" than physical evidence -- a position that is ludicrous at face value.
But then, by your own criteria, any explanation of that concrete, observed fact, would be "metaphysical". IOW all of science other than "concrete facts," is "metaphysical".
What you're saying now is that "drawing conlcusions from *facts* is metaphysical because it involved 'abstract thought'". Therefore it doesn't matter whether the subject of a theory -- the phenomena being explained -- occurred in the "unobserved past" or in the "observable, repeatable" present.
So I take it you're now abandoning this "unobservable past" criteria?
If you are opining on the positions of the planets millions of years ago, you are clearly applying abstract thought to a current observation (where the planet is today) and the conclusion is metaphysical.
...It happens that all the laws used to describe planetary motions are time invariant. They have no preference for past or future and work exactly the same in either direction. Therefore, if using them to determine past planetary arrangements is "metaphysical," then so must be using them to predict future ones.
But I think a hard-nosed engineer and astronaut like Alan Sheppard would be more than dubious if you told him that all the decisions about when to launch Apollo 11, when to burn the rockets to escape earth's orbit, and etc, where based on "metaphysical" conclusions about the moon's future position.
Since no one observed the Gospels being written, you don't believe in Jesus?