The case method is aimed at developing the rich knowledge of context and the involvement and experience necessary to become an expert. This is why the method is more powerful as a learning tool than didactic methods focusing on Socratic-Platonic rule-based theory. In this article it is argued that only detailed case knowledge makes it possible to move from novice to expert. Theory can often be important in professional practice and education but if people were trained solely by context-independent knowledge and rules they would be eternal beginners; they would know only textbook answers and would function like computers or mechanical bureaucrats. Why does the case method continue to be highly controversial? Why is the method as powerful as a learning tool as it is controversial? Those are the two focusing questions in the following. One critic of the case method described the method this way: “It's blinking bit of intellectual chaos and so darned inefficient! Why let a class ‘muck around’ for an hour trying to work through a point when I can explain it in a few minutes. They call that teaching?” Another remarked: “As far as I can see, the instructor's job is to give an intelligent grunt of approval or disapproval, ask some questions, and make a summary statement”. Why does the case method illicit harsh critiques like these? Why does the method seem to trigger what philosopher Richard J. Bernstein has named 'Cartesian anxiety', i.e. the fear of falling into a nihilist void without rationalism's terra firma, typically identified with Rene Descartes but going back to Socrates and Plato? The case method rocks the very foundation of Western philosophy, science, and modern society undermining the rationalist tradition going back more than 2000 years.