evidence: It may come as a surprise, then, to note that work on Kant’s theory of science underwent something of a renaissance in the latter part of the twentieth century. The resurgence of interest was partly motivated by the pioneering work of Peter Plaass, Gerd Buchdahl, Robert Butts, Gordon Brittan and Philip Kitcher, who appealed to Kant’s philosophy in response to a renewed emphasis on lawfulness in philosophy of science. Plaass ([1965] Reference Plaass, Alfred and Maria1994) criticized the interpretation of Kant’s critical philosophy that prevailed in the early twentieth century, which called on contemporary discoveries in mathematics and physics to expose Kant’s supposedly outdated account of space and time as pure intuitions. Instead, he appealed to transcendental idealism to clarify the metaphysical foundations of contemporary physics, claiming that the application of mathematics to the objects of scientific inquiry could never be grounded on a reality independent from thought but must depend on the structure of objecthood anticipated by the understanding. Buchdahl (Reference Buchdahl1969) contended that the schematized categories of the understanding do not govern how natural objects behave, which would entail a problem of inference from general category to particular law.