Logic vs Evidence

[Mudhammam]

This is an interesting question. On the one hand, logic is the constituent upon which our mind perceives reality, and hence, precedes evidence. So, we look out into the world, and we notice that things in our immediate experience are organized in such a way that seem sensible to us, and we describe this organization by means of concepts that try to reach into the heart of the matter (in a very literal sense). This is true of mathematics, of which a great deal seems to be little more than "mental masturbation" and yet the seed produced from it is often proven, through experimental evidence, extraordinary fruitful in describing the inner workings of nature. On the other hand, when evidence about reality contradicts our intuition about what is logical, we realize that our minds are severely limited in terms of perceiving reality as it truly is. Does this mean that our minds are inherently irrational or that nature is inherently irrational? Is the apparent sensibility of immediate experience, that is, when it seems to obey logical principles, a feature of nature that our minds are able to perfectly replicate through perception and to a lesser extent, conception, or do our minds create an (illusory) organization in which a fundamentally chaotic and nonsensical reality only seems rational but that in actuality says little about the true nature of things beyond what is needed for the survival of our genes? That seems to be the major difference between a Platonic philosophy and an existential one. Idealism or realism... Which is true?