The rationalism versus empiricism issue is, of course, quite important for
psychology. In case the "horses teeth" example does not pan out, might I
suggest another example with a firmly established foundation? I use this
example in my classes, and it seems to work well.
The argument between "geocentric" and "heliocentric" views of the universe
was one of the most important intellectual debates in the early
renaissance. Biblical scholars wanted a geocentric universe because it
conformed with literal interpretations of the bible. Observations,
unforunately, made it difficult to support the geocentric view (i.e., the
planets "moved" in ways that made no sense if the earth was in the
center). The result? Accept empiricism over the bible? Hell no (pun
intended...). Call the empiricists heretics and arrest them!
I suspect most of you already know of these events, but in case not there
are good discussions in almost any history of science text (and in many
history of psych texts).
-- Jim Dougan
