Paul K. Feyerabend's criticisms of understandings of science

Human beings are different from other living species and have always been in an effort to know, understand and question nature and the universe since the day they were born. The questions that we constantly ask in order to learn in our childhood form the basis of our existential questions. Humans are special creatures, and they have created various types of knowledge thanks to their desire to know. The types of knowledge are said to be divided into six categories as everyday knowledge, technical knowledge, art knowledge, philosophical knowledge, religious knowledge and scientific knowledge., according to the created conditions and source. The study concerns expecially scientific knowledge There are features that distinguish scientific knowledge from other types of knowledge. These are defined as being universal, totally objective, consistent, and produced by an expert in a laboratory environment. Additionally, it is seen that there was an effort to separate scientific knowledge from other types of knowledge and to draw boundaries in terms of history in the 19th century. That century is a period in which scientific knowledge is considered superior. Other types of knowledge were considered less valuable than scientific knowledge. Reasoning was seen as the only tool at the stage of reaching scientific knowledge. In the study, the historical and conceptual criticisms of Paul Feyerabend, one of the prominent thinkers of the 20th century, to the Vienna Circle thinkers, Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos's understanding of science is examined, and the main ideas of the understanding of science that he tried to build based on these criticisms is emphasized. According to Feyerabend, science cannot be thought in a single form and reasoning is not the only source of knowledge. Key Concepts: Science, Philosophy of Science, Scientificness, Respect, Objectivity, Feyerabend