Current controversies about clinical conceptual and empirical research shed light on how psychoanalysis faces its growth. Some relevant debates (in which R. Wallerstein, A. Green, I.Z. Hoffman, M. Eagle & D. Wolitzky, J. Safran, D. Stern, R. Blass & Z. Carmeli, and J. Panksepp participated) are examined regarding the characteristics of their argumentation. Agreements and disagreements are explored searching for the ways that could have allowed the discussion to progress. Two focuses are highlighted in these debates: a) the existance of a clinical common ground and which kind of procedure could contribute for its further clarification; b) the complementation of clinical and extraclinical evidence. Based on the experience of clinical observation discussion groups both aspects are scrutinized regarding the nature of the shared clinical evidence reached in the groups and the possibility of the complementation with other methodologies. The importance of strategies of triangulation and consilience phenomena are underlined regarding their contribution to the robustness of psychoanalysis and to strenghten a critical perspective that enhances the argumentative field of the discipline valuing arguments from different sources by their own merits. This also enhances the relevance of psychoanalysis to the interdisciplinary dialogue.