In this article I will defend Paul Feyerabend. I will argue that Peter Godfrey-Smith does not represent Feyerabend charitably or accurately. Godfrey-Smith believes that Feyerabend's deep belief was that "science is an aspect of human creativity". This is partially correct, but Feyerabend was much more interested in human well-being and against domination and dogmatism. He was also interested in Western scientific imperialism. I will reference a number of articles in this article. How to defend society against science, against method, theory and reality and on freedom (to a lesser extent) will be my main background materials. There will also be some references to Lakatos and Kuhn. I'd like to introduce a little of each of these, before diving into Feyerabend's arguments, because I think they provide an important framework for understanding Feyerabend. Feyerabend wrote as a contemporary of Kuhn. Kuhn used a historical perspective to evaluate scientific progress and came to the conclusion that science goes through “normal” periods and “revolutions.” “Paradigm shifts” are what happens during the height of a scientific revolution, and these shifts are inevitable. Kuhn states that there cannot be one scientific method to be held above others, due to the fact that there is incommensurability between paradigms. Many critics have interpreted this as implying that science is not rational. Kuhn denied this, but Feyerabend fully supported it. In How to Defend Society Against Science, Feyerabend argues that we should not think of science as special and that it does not deserve the status it currently enjoys. Science often harms society, and we should be cautious when engaging in it. As cautious as we can... middle of paper... that's it. So it is easy to distort things and transform fidelity to the truth in one's daily affairs into fidelity to the Truth of an ideology which is nothing more than the dogmatic defense of that ideology. And obviously it's not true that we have to follow the truth. Human life is guided by many ideas. The truth is one of these. Mental freedom and independence are others. If Truth, as conceived by some ideologues, conflicts with freedom, then we have a choice. We could abandon freedom. But we could also abandon the Truth. (Alternatively, we could adopt a more sophisticated idea of ​​truth that no longer contradicts freedom; this was Hegel's solution.) My criticism of modern science is that it inhibits freedom of thought. If the reason is that he found the truth and now follows it, then I would say there are better things than first finding and then following such a monster.”