Ah, no, you are muddling the issues here.
First of all, there is no hypothesis is science that has a "provable result". There is current correspondence between empirical information and a given scientific model, which is -permanently- provisional and open to new data.
Luminiferous Ether was, per all testing of the model at the time, "proven". The Steady State model of the universe was, by per all testing of the model of the time, "proven".
And both were false.
As for what a hypothesis "can lead to", if presently it is not testable, that it will or won't be is an exercise of you injecting your psychic powers regarding the future into science. Better to adjust your stance to what science actually is--that a strong inference from tested knowns is science, even in the absence of a known or proposable test, e.g., the QM Interpretations.
You don't really understand the words you are using here trying to address what philosophy actually is, since "metaphysics" is a core branch of of philosophy, along with epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. It does not mean "stuff they show on Ghost Hunter". Metaphysics is the domain that studies "what fundamentally exists", and even if your stance is "only material scientifically-detectable things exist", you still have a metaphysics, and that is your stance on it. That aside, philosophy is -extremely- rigorous. Logic, for one, defines rules for evaluation of premises that are far more rigorous that statements we can make in science, due to the fact theories are provisional. A fallacious argument is fallacious, period, fully demonstrated right then and there and refuted forever. Science does not have, and never can have, that level of definitive certainty.
Most important application of this rigor is exactly what has, again, been specifically what happened historically--defining at the core what science is, and is not. Fortunately, that rigor has held and so we have means of properly defining and scoping science, which, again, you don't, and haven't, as demonstrated precisely what you're claiming. You have nothing more than a circular definition of "science"--your (inaccurate) notion of science is backed by... you repeating your demonstrated-false definition of science.
Science can thank philosophy for keeping science-damaging people like you from repeatedly harming people's understanding of it. Yes, I know, your whole reason for excluding untestable QM science as "science" is because Dawkins convinced you that science is whatever you need to say it is, to politically exclude anything relating to religion.
Fix your understanding anyway.