Aristotle's actual writings are lost. The books attributed to Aristotle are comprised of lecture notes collected by his students, later compiled according to topic, so you get the Ethics, the Politics, the Physics and Metaphysics.

They didn't quite know how to name the last book since its contents were so abstract and unrelated to the everyday world, so they simply called it "the book that comes after the Physics," which eventually became known as the Metaphysics. It is worth noting that the title is a specific reference to the book, not to any notion of the subject matter somehow transcending physics. After all, why physics, in particular?

In the light of that, it is even more jarring to see the term 'metaphysics' being used to describe spiritualism and new age mysticism.

That "book" whoever wrote it, is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.

Not at all, quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle's ideas. The postulate of wavefunction collapse is proposed ad hoc solely to explain one observed phenomenon and not connected to the rest of the theory. It's similar to Aristotle's postulate that stars are made of aether which naturally tends to move in circles around the heavens, this nicely explains motion of stars in geocentric model, and is postulated just for this. The postulate of wavefunction collapse is justified as directly observable phenomenon, anything else is thus not supported by observation. Aristotle used the same argument: that geocentrism is directly observable, thus heliocentrism is not supported by observation.

You're right that science can be done better, but that's the state of modern science.

Rubbish. It isn't remotely true that quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle, but even if it were true it wouldn't address the fact his ostensible book "Physics" is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.

I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science. Some even argue you don't need anything better, as Popper commanded. Also geocentrism is still used, because it gives correct numbers. Next question is whether correct numbers are everything needed from science. If yes, then geocentrism is perfectly good, because it gives correct numbers.

Another example: black hole information paradox. Solid modern science. It begins with "suppose we have a black hole defined as such and such". It has structure similar to many philosophic ideas, e.g. solipsism: "suppose we have solipsism defined as such and such".

> I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science.

I don't consider Aristotle's approach to physics to be the gold standard of modern science, but I'm willing to entertain the notion if you spell out exactly what you mean by "Aristotle's approach to physics."

> Also geocentrism is still used, because it gives correct numbers. Next question is whether correct numbers are everything needed from science. If yes, then geocentrism is perfectly good, because it gives correct numbers.

This makes zero sense to me.

> Another example: black hole information paradox. Solid modern science. It begins with "suppose we have a black hole defined as such and such". It has structure similar to many philosophic ideas, e.g. solipsism: "suppose we have solipsism defined as such and such".

OK. What, if anything, does the study of the philosophical notion of solipsism contribute to resolving the black hole information paradox?