Does Instrumentalism Have an End?

Crowe says that the instrumentalist is not concerned with whether or not a particular hypothesis is actually true, but whether it could "saves the phenomena" (that is, adequately explain the celestial motions as they are seen from Earth). In addition, he says that the instrumentalist should value a simple explanation over one that is more complex. It seems to me, however, that little can be accomplished using this approach since it does not identify a point at which a reasonable hypothesis should be accepted as truth (even if it does value some over others). After reading Copernicus' theory, Osiander does not accept it as truthful but merely states that it is just another explanation among many. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the instrumentalist is always saying "well it may not be true," when, if ever, does he or she come to accept some hypothesis as true? Can an instrumentalist approach still exist in the face of overwhelming evidence for a particular view?