I haven't read F yet, but my understanding is that the current consensus in the philosophy of science goes somewhat as follows:
(1) F is right that there is no pre-existing "method" (e.g., experiments in the lab to test theories, falsificationism) in science that is applied by scientists to produce clear and general results. Einstein didn't apply a recipe.
(2) science is somewhat anarchic, in that the beginnings of the scientific process involves wild guesses, speculations, special interests (the profitablity of pharma companies), etc.
(3) but there is a filtering process, as the products of step #2 are criticized on logical, empirical, and other criteria. Many of the guesses, speculations, etc. get dumped.
(4) Sometimes, a new theory or a new empirical result will be filtered out simply because it doesn't fit the prevailing orthodoxy (paradigm, scientific research program), so that even smart scientists have to fight hard to get their ideas accepted -- even when those ideas are valid.
(5) in the physical sciences, at least, the aim is to achieve consensus. Of course, that consensus may be wrong (objectively speaking), because scientists are human.
(6) No scientific conclusions are final. Rather, they are simply new hypotheses.
The combination of (2) and (3) forms a process that's analogous to Darwinian evolution (variation and selection). However, just as with real-world biological evolution, there is nothing about the process that guarantees steady improvement. In any case, "improvement" is a value judgement; one's improvement might be another's destruction.
I found _Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method_ by Henry H. Bauer (along with his book _Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies_) to be useful, even though he's a conservative of some sort and believes that the Loch Ness monster exists.
> I wonder if anarchism or libertarianism might be the form of organization of
> the bourgeois ruling class.
market libertarianism (or anarchism within a market-like setting) is often the officially-desired form of organization of the capitalist ruling class. (Some economists make $$$ spreading the _laissez-faire_ gospel at biz meetings.) In other situations, e.g., during and after the 1968 US urban "unrest," what's neeed is ORDER, not liberty. Members of the bourgeoisie often say they like anarchy outside of their businesses (_laissez-faire_, leave us alone!) but within the business, they like CONTROL, hierarchy. Bigger businesses often reject anarchy outside their business, looking for biz/government alliances, etc.
In practice, business is not anarchist. They join together in all sorts of leagues (the JCs, the city council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Department of Commerce, etc.) They are always looking for government help, e.g., the socialization of losses and the privatization of gains. -- Jim Devine / "the world still seems stuck in greed-lock, ruled by fossilized fools fueled by fossil fuels." -- Swami Beyondananda