the more successful sciences deal with acausal quantitative relationships between different variables
Ironically, you're confusing cause and effect (or rather, observation and result) in how scientific progress is made: the observation of correlation leads to the formulation of cause (i.e. theory), and the manipulation of specific variables leads to the validation of effect (i.e. proof). Without either, fields of science do not mature at all.
Now here's the million dollar question: when it comes to complex models (like genetics, neurology or the climate), how do you isolate and manipulate specific variables to validate their effect?
Ironically, you're confusing cause and effect (or rather, observation and result) in how scientific progress is made: the observation of correlation leads to the formulation of cause (i.e. theory), and the manipulation of specific variables leads to the validation of effect (i.e. proof). Without either, fields of science do not mature at all.
Now here's the million dollar question: when it comes to complex models (like genetics, neurology or the climate), how do you isolate and manipulate specific variables to validate their effect?