I don t understand the question, we can test the configuration of the universe scientifically so why not calling it science?
We can test the configuration of this universe, that can be done with science.
The problem is that we can't test the configuration of other universes. We must needs employ the data of our own universe and assume that “instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience” (Hume)
I agree that science is fueling this philosophy, I just don't see that it can be considered scientific when there can be no evidence even to establish the proposition that the configuration of other universes can be intuited from our own.
Assuming we run a 'what if...' format, then we can speculate.... but I would say that it tells us more about us and our thinking than it does about the nature of mutliverses.
To me, this would cohabit best with the Weak Anthropic Principle, that the reasoning goes the other way. The universe must have all the characteristics it does for our type of live to have evolved and be able to observe it. But another slight difference to the configuration may have permitted another type of life to evolve, and that may be able to observe it. And it's quite possible there's a range of ways our own universe could be that would still have permitted us to evolve and observe.
How many ways are there in infinity space for observers to evolve under different configurations?
I simply don't know, and I don't think the WAP is intimately connected to a multiverse, not least because I don't think the multiverse can be scientifically established either, whereas WAP can at least be shown as functional within our own.
When it comes to making predictions about the configurations of other universes, I don't think it's anything more than fun, but the kind of fun that teaches us how to think about these things.