Surely the classics (besides just the RMb"M) weighed in on
the topic of masora vs. our own logic.
haGaon Saadia (in "The Book of Beliefs and Opinions" / chapter: "Doubt and Certainty") has the following to say:
"At this point, however, we remark that this type of knowledge (I mean that furnished by authentic tradition and the books of the prophetic revelation), corroborates for us the validity of the first three sources of knowledge"
Admin.: Earlier in the book, he defined these three sources of knowledge as:
1-"knowledge gained by [direct] observation" --5 senses
2-"intuition of the intellect" -- notions such as approval and approbation
3-"knowledge which is conferred by logical necessity…i.e.: conclusions, which unless they are accepted by the individual as true, would compel his denial of the validity of his rational intuitions or the perception of his senses. Since he can't negate either of these two, he must regard the said inference as being correct."
In chapter 10: the subject is again brought up in a different but similar context:
“I say, then, that there may be some men who would give up their adherence to the Bible because many of the commandments are not clearly explained in it. My answer to them is that the Bible is not the sole basis of our religion, for in addition to it we have two other bases. One of these is anterior to it; namely, the fountain of reason. The second is posterior to it: namely, the source of tradition. Whatever, therefore, we may not find in the Bible, we can find in the two other sources. Thus are the commandments rounded out quantitatively as well as qualitatively.”