My favorite topic, Austrian method

I was reading and commenting this facebook post today:

"When I think about the Austrian School of Economics, and I try to isolate what the key features of it are that separate it from other, more widely accepted schools of thought, one thing that stands out about it, to me, is its insistence on a separation of methodology between the natural and the social sciences.I'm curious to know if anyone else here knows how one might go about getting more clarity on the actual philosophical underpinnings for the Austrian claim that the social sciences are a priori, and not a mere matter of historical record keeping. 

I'm not interested in the HISTORY of this development. Rather, I want to know if there has been any work done, or is any work being done, to analyze the epistemological foundation for these Austrian claims. I'm wanting to know if anyone is working to make these understandings clearer.

I believe Carl Menger may have been attempting to do precisely this with his Investigations Into the Methods of the Social Sciences. Unfortunately, as this work had to be translated into English, I've never felt that I was getting through to his intended meaning.

I'd certainly hope that someone, somewhere, had written more precisely on this topic since then. Hopefully someone here can direct me.

Thanks so much."

First, my thought was "theory and history". To which I recieved this reply:

I had high hopes for that one. Unfortunately, I didn't feel that it got to the heart of the matter. Mises is very dear to me, and I'm insanely indebted to him for his brilliance and his courage. But Theory and History came off to me as an impassioned rant against Marx more than a formal analysis of how the the topics in the title relate to one another.

And my response:

 I think he does a fine job discussing the topics in the title, but they only make up a small portion towards the end of the book. I also think that a lot of what is meant by Mises and others who talk about theory and history, or thymology and "verstehen" is somewhat intuitive and its not so much that any more work has to be done in the matter. They just keep tossing the same ideas around and ultimately saying the same things in different ways.

I think you either get it or you don't. To me, the most critical aspect of it all is that economics studies "complex phenomena", and as such, unlike the natural sciences, no "experiments" can be performed. I place experiments in "s because the point is, what makes an experiment useful towards certain knowledge is the isolation of variables, which is impossible in a complex phenomenon. So basically all econometrics, mathematical modeling, predictions, etc. are incapable of producing more than speculative analytics. Economics in the Misesian method provides certain knowledge regarding cause and effect. The lack of empirical data supporting the claim merely demonstrates other causal factors must be at work. Again, it is impossible to verify using any model or calculation. 

So here I sit, knowing I've solved no riddles for anyone who doesn't get it the way I do.  I simply haven't seen an argument against Mises that makes any sense yet.