I agree that a part of a theory can be shown to be invalid even though many other parts are shown to be valid. Even the basic assumptions of a model can be wrong and parts of the model may still work. That is not the point I was making. I was saying that the onus is on the model to be shown to work in a real life situation. It should not be assumed to work and its critics have the onus to show that it is "totally broken". As I am not sure what experiments have been done to show the validity of neoclassic economics in the real world - I ask. You want "actual evidence that neoclassical economics is totally broken" but I think it is more reasonable to ask for evidence that it works. Is there good evidence?