Of course, science progresses by overthrowing paradigms. But you need a paradigm to be overthrown one day, to have a science in the first place. I'm not asking for the final, ultimate, irrefutable paradigm in economics. I'm asking for any paradigm in the field, which would count as evidence that economics is a science because it's accumulated knowledge that has trumped politics and thus garnered majority support.

I must say that your responses here are surprising. I didn't expect that you'd be unable to point to any fundamental, substantive consensus at all. Instead, I thought you'd eventually admit that the neoclassical assumptions amount to the working paradigm. That's what commentators say, that the neoclassical "approach" is still dominant.