Logical Positivists vs. What Can't be "Proven"

Here is another answer from one of my philosophy of science exams. And again I am going to try to rewrite word for word what I wrote originally, as to stay as transparent as possible. (I also don't remember the exact prompt so we'll figure it out together).

"The basis on which logical positivists claimed that statements of metaphysics were meaningless were that it can't be proven. Aside from the contradictidness that nothing can technically be proven, the sciences, such as chemistry and astrology are — mostly — based off observations. Astrology, for example, has no basis or foundation for what it procures, which is why it is argued whether it is even a science or not. Therefore, to some persons, in which metaphysics couldn't technically prove itself and therefore is meaningless. Also, experience is the driving practice for scientists to falsify or create theories and when it can't be done, astrology for example, cannot be justified."

I liked the movie

What I could recall from the paragraph is "On what basis do logical positivists claim that statements from metaphysics are meaningless." I think my answer was relatively short is because the answer was quite blunt and simple. Although the examples I used are, of course, subjective, the message is clear. Essentially, if metaphysicists are unable to procure a feasible example that can be seen, grasped, etc. than the logical positivist would deem it meaningless. It would be so, because logical positivists place an emphasis on the importance on "facts" and the objectivity of science.
I included the image of Sandra Bullock from Netflix's Birdbox, because although the logical positivists don't choose not to see what can't be proven, they are both, Sandra Bullock and logical positivists, unbeknownst to what is out there, but have somewhat of an understanding. Much like, how the logical positivist probably knows something like atoms and subatomic particles in chemistry are out there but, as fundamentalists, deem it meaningless, again.