Bee in bonnet time: I hate Kant's "categories", sitting in their neat 4 * 3 table. Why only four, why those four, why does each four have three, are each of the threes supposed to 'map onto' each other?
Being very vaguely analogous to some equally arbitrary, obsolete things that Aristotle did thousands of years previously doesn't seem to me very good reason for modern philosophers to take Kant's categories seriously.
If you're looking for a Kant defender, you won't find him in me. :)
I've often wished for a list of cases where philosophy has proven useful, or has at least anticipated science in drawing correct conclusions. Here's one for the list:
The June 18 2010 Science has two very similar articles on how rat brains represent space. Both conclude that the brain already represents space as a grid before rat pups take their first steps into the world. Both make the point that this validates Kant's claim that space is an innate concept prior to experience.
(The next task is to make a corresponding list of cases where philosophers made incorrect conclusions; and estimate whether the number of correct conclusions is greater than chance.)