That is correct!
However, if something is untestable, that is, it has no practical consequence (there is nothing you can apply it to that would be different if you didn't) what is the point of it. If there is a practical consequence, then it can be tested. Otherwise, why believe it?
This is the principle of Occam's razor. If everything is explained, additional explanations are a mistake. Do you see that?
Hank
I do not grant that something is not practical consequencially because it is untestable.
Many scientific 'singularities' are universally accepted by scientists even though, by defintion, such singularities are not repeatable and observable.
If there is a practical consequence, then it can be tested. Otherwise, why believe it?
Scientists don't stop believing in singularities in science/physics simply because singularities cannot be tested by repeatability and observation.
In fact, I can think of at least one singularity which is held almost universally by Physicists.
Repeatability and observation are relevent to operational science, but not necessarily to forensic science. There's a difference between operation science and forensic science.