A lot of modern psychology/psychiatry is based on refutations of his ideas, but it's a little unfair to level the criticisms you do through anachronistic lenses

A lot of modern psychology/psychiatry is based on refutations of his ideas, but it's a little unfair to level the criticisms you do through anachronistic lenses: psychology was hardly alone in that problem, the sciences were full of it. (And for that matter, a lot of modern science is based on refuting earlier science -- look into both QM and relativity coming out of the failure of experiments trying to detect the luminiferous aether, a development on a similar timeline to Freud.) Viewing 19th and early 20th century science through the lens developed by Popper and ilk in the 20th century is unfair -- they'd have done better if they had the benefit of knowing something that wasn't invented yet, naturally. Freud and contemporaries were the birth of modern psychology, in that they were a radical improvement over the prior methods, even if they don't measure up to modern standards. The reason we talk about them so much is their role in improving over what came before -- the mistakes Freud made were better than forcibly dildoing women for "hysteria" (which is what 18th century psychiatry of women often looked like). In short, we respect Freud because he was "less wrong" than his predecessors in very meaningful ways, even if he was considerably more wrong than we are now.