No trap or problem here (except in the minds of confused religious philosophers). "True nature" is impossible to know, agreed, but rationality is aimed at a muc

No trap or problem here (except in the minds of confused religious philosophers). "True nature" is impossible to know, agreed, but rationality is aimed at a much more practical goal: accurately communicating the entirety of shared sensory human experience and abstractions built thereon. Rationality at root entails nothing more grand or mysterious than standing in a forest with another person and agreeing that "this is a tree". Language is born of the need to communicate with another being and logic is born of the need for precision and efficiency in communication. Natural selection can shape neurological modules for language in order to propagate genes, but after that there is nothing that stops language-using primates from improving and enhancing language, making it work better, building higher and more strictly defined classes of abstractions that eventually form math, logic and science. As this relates to the original subject, the primary point was that people, cryptozoologists or the religiously devout, were judging correctness by what "seems" correct rather than by rigorous science. What seems correct is the strong influence of certain default neurological modules, absent training. Only with training do people appreciate how misguided one's instincts can be and how much better science is in communicating accurate observations.