This can be said of all of philosophy (at least outside of the purely formal world of logic), not just the physical sciences. From that perspective, 'standing u

This can be said of all of philosophy (at least outside of the purely formal world of logic), not just the physical sciences. From that perspective, 'standing up to tests' is a poor way to evaluate hypotheses, except in comparison to all the others. Paying attention to falsification also performs the useful task of pushing hypotheses into saying something definitive. Science is much more than falsification, of course: for one thing, a falsificationist stance does not generate hypotheses on its own. I'm not suggesting that all of philosophy should adopt falsification as a principle (and much less that it should be ignored if it cannot): ethics, for example, is a field which I think is important beyond what is falsifiable.