It does separate it from those hypotheses we can disprove.
Certainly some conjectures are not falsifiable with current science, and some may never be. When we must make decisions based on non-falsifiable hypotheses, such as whether love is more valuable than misery, whether our life has purpose, whether we are actors or observers in the world, we must have some basis for belief or be paralyzed by believing nothing.
Given the long history of philosophical and spiritual discussion by humanity, little of which is scientifically testable, there may in fact be more to life than science.
Don't get me wrong - I love science and am a big believer that where science can be used it should be. Where science does not apply though, we must resort to reason, intuition, feeling, and whatever other basis for judgement we can have. Just as with science, no hypotheses or belief should be unassailable, but we must have a basis for belief other than science to place any value on our lives or experience.
If something is supposed to be there, you can test for it. Take the Higgs particle. A model of particle physics was proposed. That model predicted the Higgs particle. Many years later we were able to build a machine that proved its existence within reasonable doubt.
God conveniently eludes the scientific method by a technicality, which is exemption by design. Love, faith, even artistic merit are things that can be hypothesized on using scientific models. But we generally agree that these are subjective qualities.
Think about what intuition is. It is your brain applying known patterns of how the world works to a new situation. If something works as expected, or close to what is expected, that's great for normal situations, but leads to false positives, where you get an expected result for completely different reason. Intuition teaches you nothing about the underlying processes.
If you come across a situation which doesn't behave intuitively, the human brain scrambles to find something - anything - that might come close to explaining how how it works, filling in the blanks as appropriate. The human brain is great for filling in the blanks and finding patterns where there are none. In other words, it often makes stuff up. Again, intuition and feelings are not helpful for understanding underlying processes except for formulating an initial hypotheses.
The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. In this methodological uncertainty, one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is no doubt correct, theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest. Nobody who has really gone deeply into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no logical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles.
The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind is akin to that of the religious worshiper or the lover; the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.
Touché
Einstein famously said "God does not play dice"; his instinct was that probability did not have a place inside the fundamental laws of physics. His stubbornness prevented him from fully accepting the Heisenberg model for some time, although as an exemplary scientist he was able to put aside his instincts and accept that a probabilistic quantum model did describe the known observable a very well.
As others have suggested, Sheldrake does have quite a bit of research behind him attempting to find evidence or disprove his hypotheses - and he does not claim them to be any more than hypotheses.