This book purports to show Freud's errors in constructing an interdisciplinary science. The author has some respect for Freud because his example has shown why cognitive science must be interdisciplinary; but as most of the disciplines he borrows from have progressed immensely in this century, the overall structure of psychoanlytic theory has come to ruins. Hence the dangers inherent in any interdisciplinary science. This argument would have been somewhat interesting, had the author actually possessed any knowledge of any of the disciplines involved. But she doesn't, and her book fails miserably. Above all there is the assumption that if modern researchers disagree with freud on any point whatsoever, they must be right and Freud wrong. Then the author claims that there is a general agreement on what Freud actually said, because he writes more clearly than Kant. Well, she really hasn't read much of the relevant literature. The disagreement on what Freud actually said is so astonishing as to have no parallel in the history of thought. Kant is relatively easy compared to Freud because his writings can be deciphered once one has learned to read bad German. Freud does not present a great deal of surface difficulty; the difficulty lies in actually thinking with him. And lastly, relying on people like Ellenberger or Sulloway is very problematic. Has the author read any of the refutations? Did she simply ignore them? Does she even know anything about modern research in neuroscience and psychology, beyond, say, the Churchlands? What about Kosslyn? LeDoux? Kandel? Alkon? Edelman? Lakoff? Changeux? I would recommend the books of all of these authors as an introductory course on how to read Freud in the context of cognitive science.