Ie., rather than say "vaccines cause autism" we'd say: here are some cases where they co-occur; here is an empirical investigation into possible causes in these cases; here's the risk profile across various possible 'abductions'.
Were we to lack any good science of immunology, etc. we'd have to stop there and then start a risk analysis assuming each possible universal conclusion was true, hence giving a kind of "policy ensemble".
Since we have good-enough immunological science, and so on, we can show that the lack of anything other than time-correlated instances makes the likelihood of a causal relationship near zero (in epistemic risk terms, at least).
In otherwords, I expect for most areas we're interested in, there is never going to be anything close even to immunology -- let alone physics. I dont think many of the world's universals are statable.
Namely, i think chaotic non-linear systems preclude it; and systems with power-law like behaviour make collecting enough data practically impossible.
I'm sceptical there will every be anything more than sociology for society; literature for articulating inner psychological experiences; etc.
This is, in part, why stats is doubly harmful in these cases. It isnt a kind of protoscience, it's acutally pseudoscience which gets in the way of 'humble abductions'