“Maybe someday things will change,” Achinstein added, “and the speculations will become testable; and maybe not, maybe never.” We may never know for sure the way the universe works at all distances and all times, “but perhaps you can narrow the live possibilities to just a few,” he said. “I think that would be some progress.”
… progress in fundamental physics very often comes from abandoning cherished prejudices (such as, perhaps, the assumption that the forces of nature must be unified) …
As seen in Physicists and Philosophers debate the Boundaries of Science 
, culminating in:
‘do not trust your own thinking.’
When drafting the title of the event, the "languages" in it had at first been "theory". From Is The Multiverse A Scientific Theory? (Synopsis) :
When people use the word theory colloquially, they use it to mean an “idea” or a “possibility” that could conceivably be at play. But a scientific theory has a much more stringent set of things it must accomplish: it must encompass all the successes of the previously leading theory, it must make successful predictions for phenomena that the leading theory cannot make, and it must predict additional, novel phenomena that can be either validated or refuted.
But we also know From Gravitational Waves to the Multiverse :
Unfortunately, we (scientists) suffer from the bias that when we’ve identified all the systematic errors we can and we get a result that’s in alignment with our expectations, we stop looking for new systematics.
What to do about it?
the testability debate
Such a case must be made in formal philosophical terms.
Physicists, philosophers and other scientists should hammer out a new narrative for the scientific method that can deal with the scope of modern physics. In our view, the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory.
The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack.
other voices
There is a proclamation of a not-so-new kind of science which proposes the universe as being comprised of computational automata, recursive, self-stabilising algorithms. But if your brain is not a computer , why would the universe be?
An increasing chrononormative time-macho culture surpresses the speculative chance of accidentally running into patterns of self-reification.
Irritatingly information theory was especially modeled to make statements in that regard.
Now it becomes important to look at the relation of pattern languages, their visual representations and implicit topologies. Higher-order views may help in gaining clarity at the categorial scale.