In this short piece Ann Casement takes up the long-standing philosophical debate about the scientific status of psychoanalysis. In particular she puts forward some of the arguments adduced by Adolf Grünbaum in his recent book The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: a Philosophical Critique. She discusses Grünbaum's views in relation to those of Habermas and of Popper, airing some of the issues around whether psychoanalysis might be considered a ‘human’ science, able to be validated by inductive methods, in contradistinction to a ‘natural’ science, which depends on the more stringent methods of deduction. The debate undoubtedly affords intellectual stimulation, but I find it difficult to agree with Casement, following Grünbaum, that, in the terms set out here, it matters very much.