No doubt. Just bear in mind that rationality has a limit and is constrained by the amount of knowledge we have, as well as the limitations of our conciousness, which I don't have to tell you is neither infinite nor omniscient.
I'm all for finding a rational explanation for everything I see and experience, which is why I admit that there are things / phenomenon and possibilities beyond our understanding and capacity to conceptualize.
If this was 2000 years ago and I had some quirky medical condition that made my brain sensitive to radio waves, it's a bit like me saying I experienced something and you saying it's just my imagination and that there could be a rational explanation for it. What was "magic / inexplicable" back then is common knowledge now and the same could be true for things like aliens and even concepts like God. Who knows?
Ok, two things. There are infinite things we cannot explain and yet the theories we have to explain them are not valid if they lack evidence and logic. You cannot say that just because some people see themselves floating on top of their bodies when in grave physical states that what they are seeing is death. It is a theory, but a theory is always discarded in favor of more logically plausible theories for which there is more evidence. Between the two theories, one claiming that it is death that they are seeing and the other that it is hallucinations caused by the physical workings of a still working brain, the more plausible theory is the second one. So until a more plausible explanation appears, we must assume the one that our deductive reasoning tells us is the most likely.
For instance, no one understands the workings of sub atomic particles. No one understands why we can't know the location and speed of particles at the same time. Quantum mechanics goes against logic and yet it is plausible because the predictions made by scientists work with over 99.99999% accuracy. In this case, logic is trumped by overwhelming evidence. Sometimes logic is not obvious and evidence that something that appears illogical is indeed logical merely indicates that there are extraneous variables that make the logic not obvious to us, but it is logical because the evidence that it woorks indicates that.
A theory must be logically plausible for it to be acceptable. If it is not logical but there is evidence for it being valid - when it produces effects that can be verified - the theory is valid and the only reason why it appears illogical is because there are variables involved that we cannot account for.
For instance, there is no evidence that lepricons and fairies do exist: they have never been seen, caught on camera and there is no reason why they should exist: all laws of logic tells us that there is no reason or mechanism about that could result in the existence of creatures that defy all laws of physics and common sense, such as walking through walls, turning objects into other object, living without sustenenace(having to eat) etc. Now, even though evidence and common sense tells us that fairies and pericons are not possible in our reality without breaking the laws of physics as well as biology, there could be some parallel universe with different laws of physics where they do exist. In this case, lack of evidence cannot be used to disprove the existence of fairies and lepricons. However, logic can still be used to disprove it via plausible deniability: we cannot conceive of a logically working universe where such beings would come about, via which laws physics that would be completely absurd, and if there are universes where such logically implausible beings are possible, then any universe with even more unlikely beings and things that defy logic in even more absurd ways are also possible, and then everything is possible and logic is invalid to describe reality and then we are going nowhere because if logic cannot be used to draw conclusions then there is no structure in reality and everything would be chaos. Because reality does work via a precise way, then logic is valid and the existence of things and the possibility of theories to explain the workings of things must be evaluated via deductive logic and inferential data. Ok.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
