This is a major issue/concern in advanced theoretical physics. Is it really physics if you can't experiment or is it just mathematics?
The foundation of science is falsiability within the scientific method. It's the core tenet.
Considering physics as if MWI could be true has the potential to lead to mathematical elaboration and eventual falsifiability.
Considering physics as if there's no need to interpret QM because there's nothing to interpret (because Copenhagen is the correct interpretation) is a statement of faith, not rigour - because as a position, it's no more falsifiable than MWI, or Bohm, or any of the other interpretations.
The point of mathematical physics is to generate new falsifiable predictions. It's still science, it's just embryonic proto-knowledge - which is why it's called research, not teaching.
If that's a possibility (I can't say, I'm not a physicist) then I'd be a mistake to discard it on the basis that it's just not predictive now.
That's an overly anemic view of science. Scientific theories have both predictive and explanatory power. Interpretations of QM don't change the former, but they do change the latter.
Copenhagen, favoured by this article's author for some unfathomable reason, has little explanatory power. Many worlds and Bohmian mechanics have excellent explanatory power, and their predictive power equals Copenhagen.