We intend to defend on this thesis that the psychoanalytic method is legitimate as able to produce scientific knowledge. We depart from the point of view that the dialogue with Neuroscience could give a scientific character to the psychoanalytic propositions confirming (or not) its hypothesis. It is not difficult to notice the hierarchy of the epistemological model on that argument. A representative of the above argument is the neuroscientist Eric Kandel. He believes that although psychoanalysis still represents the most coherent and satisfactory vision of the mind it has declined in the XXI century because it was unable to develop objective methods to test its ideas – something that can only happen with a theoretical and especially methodological proximity with biology in general and Cognitive Neuroscience in particular. To support our position against this argument we will discuss the specificity of the psychoanalytic method, coining the following expression method based in the clinic conceptual investigation as the empiricism of psychoanalysis. We consider that the clinic conceptual and empiric researches superpose, and to a certain point they are undifferentiated to produce the theoretical building named Psychoanalysis.