Actually, I very much agree with you. But one time on a different forum, I said something to the effect that at the frontiers of science, they're doing philosophy, in particular, metaphysics. But metaphysics by the philosophical definition, not the vernacular connotation of "woo." A lot of people there refused to consider the word in its philsophical context and accused me of saying that science is woo. A shitstorm ensued and I gave up, left the forum.
Since then, I've been very careful in how I talk about it. In the sense that scientists are trying to figure out what really is true about the universe, yeah, they're doing metaphysics, whether its ontology or epistemology or whatever. If they take the models they construct to be representative of how things really are, they're making metaphysical assertions, and when they propose such things as multiverses, etc, that we can't test, they're doing speculative metaphysics, aided by complex mathematics. But that's nothing whatsoever similar to what Rupert Sheldrake is going on about, and I never intended to imply such.