"Correlation doesn't imply causation" has always seemed odd to me. Probably because I keep thinking of "imply" in the "indirectly accuse" sense, instead of the "proves" sense. Of course correlation doesn't prove causation. It's evidence, but nothing to build a proof on. Just a hypothesis.
To say something with certainty, you need a logical proof (ideally) or the scientific method (some degree of certainty). And the scientific method isn't "build enough evidence for a strong case", like the legal system or something. It's "attempt divination". Make a hypothesis about future results, then do your best to contradict that hypothesis. If the hypothesis holds up despite you and your peers' best efforts, it may be reliable enough to work with.
But yeah, correlation doesn't imply causation... But it's a potential lead. Just remember that typical real life systems can have dozens or hundreds of factors contributing. An extreme case is a bit of drama I often saw growing up, where a certain event was given credit for winning a war or election. Noooo. Some events had a greater impact, but to flatly say "John Smith won because X" is to ignore the whole rest of the alphabet. Even if a lack of X might have changed the result. stupid 2-party system.
I also hate the lazy practice of judging a decision by its results. Kinda related. Ideally, a decision should be judged based on the information available at the time. I would say more but instead I'm going to sleep.
My sunburn hurts.