Yeah, because you're engrossed in hypermathematical economics, you're presupposing the mathematician's standards of truth and proof. I argue in the article linked below that those standards are irrelevant in empirical explanations of nature, contrary to the philosophical rationalists.
So when you say that special science models aren't falsified, you mean they're not disproven in the mathematician's sense; they're not shown to be flatly incorrect the way you can show that "Two and two are five" is false, by appealing to stipulated rules that allow for necessary conclusions.
There will always be wiggle-room for the model's defenders, because the relevant factors are probability and abduction (appeal to the best explanation, where "best" is nonmathematically determined by various epistemic standards and social processes).
I take it the question of whether "neoclassical" economics is still dominant is only semantic. Because macroeconomics has become propaganda, the agenda is hidden behind walls of impenetrable math and a patchwork of unfalsifiable a priori models.
Nevertheless, mainstream economists in the US defend American-style capitalism, which is to say neoliberalism. They think the market should be weakly regulated except in times of trouble, when the plutocracy becomes so corrupted that the sociopaths in charge shit the bed, in which case the government should bail them out in Keynesian fashion. So it's socialism for the rich and capitalist hard-knocks for the poor, as befits a neofeudal society. The heterodox economists criticize this kind of "capitalism."
