Now, I'm trying very hard not to get into a war over definitions - as in claiming this is the "right" definition, but I do need to explore definitions to correctly answer this question.
I think my argument was that empirical science does not care about the "artificial" distinctions of physical and non-physical, natural and supernatural, "real" and magic. All science cares about is models based on empirical evidence that offer falsifiable empirical predictions that are rigorously attempted to be falsified. Suppose that people tomorrow manifested some cheesy magic ala Harry Potter. Scientists would study this magic using the empirical scientific method. Perhaps they would need to invent a whole new "physics" to explain it, or perhaps it would be explainable in terms of the current standard model, quantum, relativity, and so on. However, the method of investigation would be the same. In other words, empirical science explores what is observable, directly or indirectly. That's just another way of saying empirical science studies claims which can be empirically falsified.
Using psychology tactics (mind games) to make something look silly and say science would examine it and even make new laws to explain it is ironic in the sense that unexplainable things do exist and science has done neither concerning these things. Only to use psychology tactics and give them a name and category to stereotype then to make them sound stupid so they won;t have to explain it.
A perfect example of this is how YEC belief is categorized. Flat earthers, creatards, ignorant, uneducated, science haters, etc.... If the science can prove us wrong, the name calling and stereotyping (psychology tactics) would not be needed. And evolution would be able to stand up to our scrutiny and the evolutionist would only use evidence to prove their points. so the only reason the other is even needed is because evolutionists cannot meet the criteria in countering scrutiny that they claim that their theory does meet.