The definition of the Church-Turing's thesis is an attempt at capturing the intuitive idea of effective computability or "things that can actually be calculated".
It has been said that it is not something to be proven, or refuted, but important assumptions underlying scientific work in many fields of research rely on some version of the thesis, one important case being the linguistic assumption that the semantics of natural languages can be formalized in any significant way.
Considering that it is unfalsifiable, should the Church-Turing's thesis be given such an important role in scientific research?
Thanks for the attention. In response to some of the criticism that the question has received, I'd like to add that,
- In many, many works in linguistics, psychology, cognitive science, philosophy, and obviously in most of what is applied computer science, a more or less conscious leap is made from thought-meaning-behavior... to computable to Turing-computable. It is to this last step that I am referring in this question. This way of thinking, while not necessarily reflective of our better understanding, still enjoys significant popularity within the scientific community (and yes, this is just my perception).
- The Church-Turing's thesis, not being entirely objective, can still be debated, objected to, even discredited and eventually considered useless (which I believe is what is going to happen, some day), but not strictly falsified.