A. I have met the criticism that metaphysical theories doesn't/shouldn't care about (natural) science (=physics mostly, if not only), as in it doesn't really have a direct relation to it (such criticism was noted on several of my questions, and is pretty rational and probably true).
But I must admit, I'm rather confused. I'll start with a quote from Chalmers' article "Idealism and the Mind-body Problem":
The basic motivations for cosmopsychism and cosmic idealism are closely related to the motivations for panpsychism and micro-idealism. As with [panpsychism and micro-idealism] views, cosmopsychism and cosmic idealism can be jointly motivated through the success of science [my marking], the problem of consciousness, and the inscrutability of matter.
Now, this seem to be clearly connecting metaphysics with science (and not the only place; Chalmers also talks extensively about the relations of different idealistic theories with quantum mechanics, specifically quantum entanglement - for example: "[in talks about what Chalmers calls macro-idealism, meaning idealism in the 'normal-sized' bodies, such as humans and perhaps animals] it is also not easy to see how quantum entanglement can stably remain somewhere around the person level rather than spreading to the cosmic level...).
From the article (and from what I previously thought metaphysics were), it seems as though metaphysical theories need to at least be coherent with existing scientific theories (if not to be able to explain and predict scientific facts). This seems rather weird, as I got the impression from the arguments I had in this site that metaphysical theories shouldn't meddle with scientific theories, in such a way that there should be a strict distinction between the two fields. So what happened here? Did I understand Chalmers wrong? Did I understand the arguments wrong? (Did Chalmers understand metaphysics wrong?)
B. [considering separating to a different question, tell me in the comments if I should:] there's another thing I'm not sure about in metaphysics. It's the fundamental understanding of "meta" in metaphysics - I hear that it means "before" physics, as in what's the basis for physics, what's the underlying systematic view of the world. But if I remember correctly, metaphysics was originally coined by Aristotle as the next book of his physics - meaning that metaphysics is actually after physics. Any help here please?