I don't think I'm having trouble understanding you at all. Rather, your definition of science is inconsistent and thus not comprehensible. To understand why, le

I don't think I'm having trouble understanding you at all. Rather, your definition of science is inconsistent and thus not comprehensible. To understand why, let's assume that the C-T hypothesis was never hypothesized, but Turing still described his mathematical formulation of the Turing machine. Mathematicians then went on to use that definition to do mathematical research not tied to the empirical world. According to you, those mathematicians are not doing science. Now let's assume that someone formulated the C-T hypothesis. Suddenly, all that work that was previously "not science" is suddenly "science." So you can see how your definition, at best, can only classify things as "science" or "maybe science" because ties to the empirical world can always be discovered later. A proper definition of science would be able to consider a study X and classify it as science or not science using only intrinsic properties of the study, not an extrinsic property like a known connection to the empirical world.