The most scorned of all branches of philosophy, that of metaphysics, gives philosophy a bad reputation, I argue. Its critics argue whether that metaphysics is nonsense or that less drastically metaphysical statements are impossible to prove. In the worst cases, some metaphysical works are said to be senseless, meaningless verbiage whose purpose is none other than to mystify through mazes of words that are intricate yet conveys little meaning. Although, the purpose of such intellectual works is theoretical by nature, the very presumptive nature of it certainly doesn't help gain approbation among scholastic critics who see them as nothing more than useless and exotic speculations. Perhaps the most important critics of metaphysics, or most prominent, are those of the positivist school, who argue that knowledge stems from the sensible experience and that all speculations that do not stem from any such experience are nonsense. They claim that metaphysics and empirical sciences are diametrically opposed to one another; although before the development of scientific method both were considered to be one of the same thing due to their speculative nature. For, but to claim something whose consequences will never amount to anything concrete is at the very most idle, metaphysics will never have as much authority as empirical science, or if, only so among people with a credulous mindset that is highly vulnerable to rhetorics. However, I will concede that metaphysical works as well as any other intellectual work, that is if they were written with intelligence, do possess an indisputable educational value and promotes the development of critical thinking.