I assume you&#x27;re referring to &quot;Against Method&quot; by Feyerabend?<p>His argument is absolutely not that science is &quot;random&quot;. It&#x27;s that the methods of science cannot be predicted, prescribed, or universal, even over very short time scales and between similar fields.<p>Even if Feyerabend is right [0], it&#x27;s still perfectly reasonable to expect studies to be repeatable.<p>[0] I&#x27;m sure he is but I think that the degree and practical significance of his observation is questionable.