According to Explanandum and Explanans on Wikipedia:
An explanandum (a Latin term) is a sentence describing a phenomenon that is to be explained, and the explanans are the sentences adduced as explanations of that phenomenon.
It seems to me that there's a huge difference between natural and socially constructed phenomena, and not just because the latter are potentially unwanted or dangerous, but because theoretical and hypothetical explanans in sociology may not relate to anything real or existent.
Take 'intelligence', and the supposed measurement of it by IQ, a means to explain different social and economic outcomes. If we explain differences in these outcomes with IQ, we must surely accept that the causal chain works in the opposite direction too, that social economic outcomes affect IQ scores.
Is it bad science to try to factor out the former (outcomes) from the latter (IQ) due to the latter being hypothetical? So my question is whether hypothetical constructs can at all explain that which contributes to their explanatory power. Especially in sociology.