My attitude is that whether a theory is less "scientific" in nature" soon becomes linguistic and the discussion takes much care to be sure people are using their terms in compatible ways. Thus, it can move from 'philosophical' to 'scientific' when some sort of pragmatic test of it become possible.
I simply 'like' to keep categories carefully (as carefully as possible) defined and separate. I often find terms to be (probably subconsciously) endowed with treated as real classes once they enter a discussion. 'Universe' once meant "all there is"..... now it has become linguistically some sort of sub-category of reality- and reality itself has become a slippery concept. Plato's 'forms' is/are still alive and kicking.

I am not suggesting that physicists, using ^higher math, stop pushing the limits of ideas...we need new ways of approaching some problems. I just see too much of it as a game of multidimensional fairy chess between players who have discarded the pieces & the board in favor of "knightness" and "movable squares". (I just coined all those terms except 'fairy chess') Let 'em play, says I... and let me know when they can DO some science that has implications for basic cosmology.

(It seems ... to me at least.. that the debate over how to even discuss the concepts becomes a meta-debate over the language used. 130+ hours of philosophy sent my mind in many directions)