Astronomy, Cosmology, Epidemiology, Geology, Economics. You definitely can’t do experiments in cosmology and good luck with epidemiology or geology. Microeconomics is actually much, much more experimental than most of the rest of that list.
The case of the validation of the age of the Earth, something widely accepted as unknowable as late as 1900, and established to within 1% of its accepted value by the 1950s, is a case in point.
It is not possible to go back in time to measure the age of the Earth. It is possible to combine measurements and observations, of radioactive decay, of magnetic switching magnetic orientation in seafloor cores, of corresponding coastlines, of similar (or different) fossil records, of genetic drift noted DNA sequences, of rocks obtained from other bodies (including the Moon and Mars).
Naomi Oreskes has written of the development of plate tectonics from crackpot theory to the foundational concept of all Terrestrial geology, over fifty years, being formally accepted in 1965.
The discovery of helium, Dr. John Snow's Broad Street pump observations, validation of Einstein's space-time predictions through eclipse observations and GPS clock desynchronisation, of black holes, exoplanatary discoveries, use of Cephid variables to validated the expanding universe hypothesis, and measurement of gravity waves, would be examples of scientific experiments in the fields of astronomy,cosmology, epidemiology, and geology.
Economics needs to admit to falsifiability or stop considering itself a science.
The primary barrier to that latter is that special pleading allows economics to continue entertaining numerous highly-attractive falsehoods. Noteably: exemption to the laws of thermodynamics.
As well as lesser sins including an intentional ignorance of much of its own history and formative theory.
Disclaimer: Degreed in economics.
To add to this, econometricians and statisticians are leading the calls for causal inference. Economists embedded in Google, Netflix, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. are at the forefront of the fields, speaking to how theory and practice play out (sometimes called techonomists).
While economics doesn't lend itself a physics or psychology laboratory to teach its basic principles, that doesn't mean the field isn't concerned with causal impact of policies suggested by theory. Personally, my observation is that making sure falsifiability and generalizability of theory is at the heart of modern economic discussion.
Or if you prefer to state another text, please do, and the core propositions and principles of the field.
Again: if you prefer to state another text (or texts), please do, and the core propositions and principles of the field.
And you're still evading answering.
Or are you really curious about how undergraduates are taught, despite the distinction between the undergraduate curriculum and the professional researcher's view? My introductory economics course used Mankiw's textbook. If I remember correctly, it didn't even use calculus. Imagine a university physics course doing that. I think of that more like high school level. Come to think of it, AP Economics probably would have let me skip that class.
Looking over at my bookshelf, I see Wooldridge's "Introductory Econometrics". That's a pretty good one, with plenty of empirical work. I can't spot my macroeconomics textbook, but I remember it evaluating each model by how consistent its predictions were with observed behavior.
... it occurs to me that someone ought to update Wooldridge's exercises for R-language or Python ...