Even in physics, Einstein's theories had to be supported by things like astronomical observations.
We will never know if quantum state exists or if probability clouds collapse upon observation because by that very principle we will never know the state prior to observing it.
Calling it "wholely unscientific" makes you seem like a crank.
How would you propose we could test quantum state and collapse to validate that the concept is actually correct?
Like (I grumble about this approach a lot) observational studies at a population level are certainly science, even though there's no experiments. Granted, in medicine at least they end up feeding into RCTs and controlled studies which is good, but in a lot of cases (child development is a big one) lots of hypotheses can't ethically be tested using experimental designs.
We can't get sets of identical twins and raise one in a rich home and another in a poor home, holding everything else constant. Does this mean twin studies aren't science?
I actually kinda agree that a lot of economics is very poor science (far too much maths on far too little data) but that's reflective of the difficulty of collecting such data rather than an indictment of the approach.
In that case, is geology a science?
I too am sceptical about economics (mostly macro, the micro stuff is fine) but there are lots of places where you can't run experiments and some of them are science.