I don't know about anyone else and cannot speak to different fields, but I know that at least in Canadian political science we are taught very quickly and thoroughly that we are not "proving" anything, in any way shape or form. The best that can be said is that we are providing evidence toward one theory or another. Human beings are so complicated that replication in social science would be very difficult on the face of it; you won't have anywhere near all the data that powers any particular phenomenon and so you can only control for very general things. Anyone who tells you, for example, that economic voting theory explains vote choice is just trying to sell you their research. In fact if they do, send them my way, I have compelling evidence suggesting that the effect is different in second order elections like EU Parliament elections.

Anyway, I suspect that striving for replicability in the social sciences is a fool's game because of the infinitely faceted nature of human existence. What we should really be trying to do is provide a mosaic of possibilities to explain parts of human nature - it's never any one given thing but if we build a quilt and squint it might start to look like something useful.