I also think that in many cases we are really not talking about science as many of these methods are falsifiable

To qualify as science, something must be falsifiable. It is just wrong to say something is not science because it is "falsifiable".

I guess you meant to say "many of these methods are false/wrong". In that case I would point out that being wrong does not mean it is not science. The plum pudding model is wrong, but in its day it was a reasonable proposition based on available data. New data forced a more accurate model to emerge. Despite being completely wrong, the plum pudding model played a valid scientific role. To this day it is useful as an example of how science works. With time and observation models improve. Why should the same process not work in respect of computer simulations?