I assume you're referring to "Against Method" by Feyerabend? His argument is absolutely not that science is "random". It's that the methods of science cannot b

I assume you're referring to "Against Method" by Feyerabend? His argument is absolutely not that science is "random". It's that the methods of science cannot be predicted, prescribed, or universal, even over very short time scales and between similar fields. Even if Feyerabend is right [0], it's still perfectly reasonable to expect studies to be repeatable. [0] I'm sure he is but I think that the degree and practical significance of his observation is questionable.