Some of the recent criticisms of psychoanalytic metapsychology are discussed, particularly the contributions of Schafer and Rubinstein. An examination of the logic underlying these criticisms indicates that many of them are either 1) extratheoretical and say nothing about the scientific status of the theory or formulation under scrutiny; or 2) rely on certain a priori philosophical assumptions which, if adopted, would severely limit the scope of psychoanalytic theorizing. Several suggestions are offered which would allow for more fruitful discussion of substantive logical and empirical questions.