He maintains that Freud has been misunderstood by Habermas and Ricœur as having based his claim that the clinical theory is a natural science on reduction of its hypotheses to those of the metapsychology.

He rejects Habermas's view that it is the acceptance of psychoanalytic interpretations by patients in analytic treatment that establishes their validity, and accuses him of quoting Freud out of context to help him make his case.

Grünbaum refers to this defense as the "Tally Argument", and maintains that Freud used it to justify the claim that durable therapeutic success guarantees that the interpretations made in the course of therapy are accurate.

According to Grünbaum, these premises together entail that there is no spontaneous remission of psychoneuroses, and that, if their cure is ever accomplished, psychoanalysis is "uniquely therapeutic for such disorders" as compared to rival therapies.

The critic Frederick Crews read the draft of The Foundations of Psychoanalysis in 1977 and helped Grünbaum to obtain a publication offer from the University of California Press.

According to Richmond, the neuroscientist Eric Kandel maintained in 2005 that Grünbaum's critique of psychoanalysis had "stood essentially unchallenged to the present day.

[20] The psychologist Margaret Chernack Beaudoin, the philosopher Gregory A. Trotter, and the scholar of rhetoric Alan G. Gross, have criticized its treatment of Ricœur.

[21] Beaudoin maintained that Grünbaum was mistaken to attribute to Ricœur the view that language is primary for psychoanalysis and that symptoms should be assimilated to linguistic expressions.

She also argued that Grünbaum mistakenly claimed that Ricoeur endorsed Lacan's views and quoted Freud out of context to support "a purely causal interpretation of Freudian theory".

[23] The psychiatrist Edwin R. Wallace IV criticized the work for its discussion of suggestion and understanding of analytic practice, as well as its reliance on a "positivistic vision of science.

"[28] Robinson considered The Foundations of Psychoanalysis rigorous, but also poorly organized and difficult to understand for those without a background in philosophy, something that in his view had limited its influence.

"[40] The author Richard Webster argued that The Foundations of Psychoanalysis has been overvalued because of its abstract style of argument and has distracted attention away from issues such as Freud's character.

He described it as an "epoch-making" work that was fair and rigorous, and wrote that it exposed psychoanalysis as a "speculative cult" and would inevitably lead to the discrediting of psychoanalytic therapy and its associated theory.

[46] Lieberson described the book as "strangely organized" and "difficult" and compared it to "a string of scholarly articles to which vast accretions of evidence and afterthoughts have been added."

[82] In Behavioral and Brain Sciences, it received mixed reviews from Peter Caws,[83] Cioffi,[84] the psychoanalyst Marshall Edelson,[85] the philosopher B.

He endorsed Grünbaum's view that Freud's main hypotheses could be validated only by extra-clinical studies, and believed that his work demonstrated the power and continued importance of analytic philosophy.

He praised Grünbaum's discussion of the "Tally Argument", arguing that it helped to show that the use of "extraclinical methods for verifying psychoanalysis" involves abandoning "the Freudian research strategy or program."

[61] Holt credited Grünbaum with providing the most powerful and subtle philosophical evaluation of psychoanalysis and "the most substantial indictment of Freud as a scientist that we have yet seen."

However, he believed that Grünbaum exaggerated "the dearth of supportive evidence for Freud's theories" as well as the problems facing contemporary psychoanalysis and the extent to which free association was undermined by suggestion.

[69] Reiser praised Grünbaum's discussion of the "Tally Argument" and agreed with him that validation of psychoanalytic claims had to be based ultimately on extraclinical findings.

[72] Shevrin complimented Grünbaum for his "critique of the psychoanalytic clinical method", but believed the work was likely to be misunderstood as an attack on psychoanalysis rather than an attempt at suggesting how it could be given a better empirical basis.

[73] Storr credited Grünbaum with convincingly criticizing free association, Freud's theory of dreams, and Popper, and with showing that attempts to validate psychoanalytic claims must be based on extraclinical testing.

[78] Ruttenberg considered the book carefully argued, and wrote that Grünbaum made a brilliant case that psychoanalytic hypotheses should be tested by normal scientific procedures.

[79] Kline, writing in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, credited Grünbaum with making a powerful case against the idea that repression is pathogenic for neurosis and with demonstrating that clinical data cannot support psychoanalytic theory.

He believed that Grünbaum's discussion of the "Tally Argument" helped to show that psychoanalysts are mistaken to rely on clinical data to make causal claims.

[85] Farrell agreed with Grünbaum's argument against Freud's method of clinical observation, but nevertheless found it "vague and obscure" and believed that it had "serious limitations" that would lead to its rejection by psychoanalysts.

[86] Kline, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, credited Grünbaum with convincingly criticizing both Freud's clinical method and hermeneutic interpretations of psychoanalysis.

[87] Notturno and McHugh, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, endorsed Grünbaum's view that the clinical evidence used as a basis for psychoanalysis is weak and that validation of Freud's claims must be based on extraclinical studies.

[91] Wachtel considered the book to be of lasting value, but criticized Grünbaum's discussions of the development of Freud's work, the psychoanalytic theory of paranoia, and the "Tally Argument".

He argued that Grünbaum failed to take fully into account developments in psychoanalysis, overemphasized its clinical aspects, and had a questionable understanding of psychoanalytic theory.