Perhaps you should look harder. The dominant approach in economics for 20 years has been to reject correlational studies and try very hard to get at casuality, by:

* Running randomised controlled trials, often at scale (see eg Esther Duflo);

* Laboratory experiments, which have provided a body of robust paradigms and results;

* Seeking natural experiments;

* Statistical techniques like regression discontinuity and instrumental variables.

There's plenty of bad work in the social sciences. So is there elsewhere in the natural sciences (cough Lancet). There's plenty of good work too.