We always end up back with cluster/cohort analysis, then definitions. I think a big part of the problem is that we've already convinced ourselves of the definitions of the terms. These definitions prevent actual progress. We end up defining ourselves into our own locked room.
No, indeed, the thing you've been asked to do is an exercise in risk management -- there is no statistical reality to the predictions here; ignore them.
So, i'd still say that opener is vital. I try to move on to ensemble scenario modelling prose-style by several experts, etc. then, eventually, i tell them about geometric brownian motion -- only when i'm convinced they're absolutey certain it's smoke-and-mirrors
And that therefore they are aware that their job is primarily to manage risk, and a statistical model is only one minor (often blinding) tool in that box
If you need a point estimate, so be it, but claw it from my cold dead fingers. Most of the world isnt knowable, sorry to disappoint. Now go actually manage your damn responsibilities
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'