In three recent articles, Slater (1972, 1973, 1975) has made certain claims concerning the nature of science, especially as it applies to psychiatry. Most recently (Slater, 1975), he has applied his criteria for assessing science to psychoanalysis, and has found it seriously lacking. In this article Slater's criticisms of psychoanalysis are used as a foil to attack his criteria for science. It is argued that his methodological criteria are extremely conservative and would be likely to cause the demise of scientific activity if at all seriously applied. Further, it is argued that psychoanalysis is a science on any reasonable application of Slater's criteria.