Answers to some of the questions that have been raised are
traditionally explored in philosophy of science.
For example the demarcation between crackpot theories (pseudo science)
and alternative theories.
The traditional response from Popperians would be that only the latter
are refutable.
The question on alternative theories raises the issue of UTE or
under-determination of theories by the evidence. This would seem to
be the case with current quantum mechanics, at least regarding its
interpretation. For example, as far as I am aware there is no
experiment that can differentiate between Bohm's theory and the
standard Copenhagen interpretation. Whether one wants to distinguish
between "theory" and "interpretation" is another tissue.
UTE is commonly used as an argument for anti-realism about scientific
theories. If more than one theory can adequately describe all the
known data then how can one claim that either theory is "true".
The problem is that such cases tend to be rare, but QM seems to provide
a rather important example. Hence the considerable interest in
foundations of quantum mechanics as shown by philosophers of science.