Can freudian speech be regarded as scientific? This is a question that has been discussed since the onset of psycanalysis and has been answered in the negative by a number of academics, which are remarkably logical. In line with these criticisms, a number of theories have endeavoured to offer psychcanalysis a theft that is compatible with the requirements of the logic. Freudinal discourse tests come both from the inside of the psychology and from the outside. In the first case, Mr Rapaport’s attempt to reintegrate psycanalysis into scientific psychology. In the second, Mr Skinner’s commitment to appropriate psychologitic theory, with a view to subjecting it to the beautiful stimuly-response scheme. Mr Ricoeur strongly disputes this reductionist stance. The operational and beautiful reformulations, as the French thinker complains, even welcome the possibility of raising the question of meaning. However, blurring the meaning of metapsychological discourse is to disappear psychosis to such an extent as to render it unrecognisable. However, reverse misconduct is no less serious: retain only the interpretation, without taking into account the forces that distort the sense. However, that misunderstanding was committed by a number of theories, notably Mr Dalbiez and Mr Hyppolite. The former distinguishes and separates freudian doctrine, which he regards as a physicist and naturalist, from the psychologitic method, which, in its view, is well founded and corresponds to the psychcanalysis itself. Echoing Dalbiez, Hypppolite denounces the contrast between Freud’s supposed theoretical positivism and its medical interpretative method. The most critical point in freudian speech would be the energy design of psychology. Ricoeur reiterated the discussion of the “epistemological problem of freight” at the point where Hyppolite left it. For him, this problem takes the form of an aporisation whose terms are energy and interpretation. How can I justify an economic analysis based on the clinical interpretation of dreams, symptoms and failed acts and an interpretation which must necessarily be based on the economic explanation, with its energy models, deeply unconnected with its meaning? According to Ricoeur, psychologistic discourse is both energetic and interpretative, explanatory and interpretative. “Psychology is not an observatory science”, summarises our thoughts, but a hermential science.