You (and really, the whole of Lesswrong) should Popper's paper "The Nature of Philosophical Problems and Their Roots in Science".
An excellent recommendation. Thank you.
Of course [Kant's "Critique" is] confused and wrong. But in its time it was brilliant and original.
I won't disagree that it was brilliant and original. My question was whether it was helpful. Or, if you prefer, whether it was fruitful.
I'm a big fan of David Hume. And I understand that Hume's writing on "the problem of induction" was fruitful to the extent that it stimulated Kant's work. My problem is that my distaste for Kant leads me to doubt that Hume's work here was fruitful. Or at least I have to doubt that it has yet borne fruit yet (though Laplace, Jaynes, and Solomonoff have certainly tried heroically to grow something digestible from that barren ground.)
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.)