One, this indicates that a good way to teach history and rational thinking at the same time would be to present historical data up to a set point, ask students to reason out what they think will happen next in history, and then reveal what actually happened and use the feedback to calibrate and improve our historical reasoning (which will hopefully provide some benefit in other domains).

I really like this idea, but it seems like it could be tricky to do this well (or alternatively, easy to do this badly). The key question is what data you present to people, given that you clearly can't present it all. Randomly selecting data risks missing useful stuff; while consciously selecting data risks falsely confirming the selector's theories about why stuff happened.

The first risk is probably less of a concern, and maybe getting students to ask for/research the data they think might be useful could help get around any remaining worries (as well as training people to ask the right questions)?