In this paper I locate and discuss a number of problems involved in a proposal to revise very considerably what may fairly be called the received account of Freud as scientist manqu?. My purpose is in no way exegetical or antiquarian. It is because of the attention currently (and properly) paid to him by certain philosophers that I choose Freud as a vehicle for raising what I take to be philosophical issues of very general importance. For this reason, I find it necessary to make at the outset certain limited assumptions about Freud's methods and procedure. My concern is with what is to be said if these assumptions are correct. Except in the somewhat unglamorous discussion of Section II, I reach few firm conclusions. My hope is that I indicate where the problems lie, and how they might be resolved.