ObjectiveDoes psychoanalysis run the risk of excluding itself from the psychotherapic field by refusing to comply with the logic of proof? We answer this question by focusing on the epistemic status of psychoanalytic interpretation. MethodWe sketch out how a portion of the psychoanalytical field contrasts the comprehensive and the explanatory logics to overcome the tensions inherent to Freudian epistemology, and to claim psychoanalysis’ epistemic specificity. We then discuss several empirical studies aimed at experimentally testing psychoanalytic theses or evaluating the effectiveness of psychotherapies. ResultsThe hermeneutic approach fails at justifying interpretation autonomy from the explanatory sciences, while experimental psychoanalysis fails to integrate psychoanalysis’ interpretive dimension within its research protocols. DiscussionsDrawing on Daniel Dennett's intentional stance theory as well as on epistemological pluralism, we outline the conditions under which the comprehensive logic can be considered a science and be experimentally tested. We show how some experimental works integrate psychoanalysis' interpretative dimension. ConclusionsIncorporating psychoanalysis’ interpretative dimension into experimental protocols might contribute to provide extra-clinical evidence supporting psychoanalysis as well as to open new research avenues.