I think the issue is more that the social sciences themselves are attempting to operate as the natural sciences do with predictive, falsifiable, and independently actionable conclusions.

History is invaluable and the lessons learned can provide some degree of predictive power. Yet it would be unreasonable to try to argue that something ought be enacted as, as a matter of fact (or at least heavily supported hypothesis), because of results derived from the study of history.

The social sciences in general seem to be want to be allowed to behave as a "historical and descriptive" field, yet be received with the same credulity as, for instance, experimental physics. Ultimately, I think the field needs to choose to go one way or the other.

The problem is activist social "scientists" making broad claims with no dvidence,and the march to enact sweeping societal changes with their "results".

See: Stereotype Threat, Implicit Association Test and Implicit Bias, Power Posing, et al.