Nice post. However, I was left wondering just how accurate were the concepts you were talking about. I would probably start with irrationality and improbability. You start by pointing out how, at some point of the DuckTales game it seemed that an underground race of dwellers feels like an irrational explanation, for the noise the other characters heard when mining. For me, it feels more like an improbable explanation. If indeed the underground dwellers made the amount of noise necessary, it would seem, rationally, that their activity can justify the event, even if this hypothesis has a initial statistical value nearing zero.
I do tend to agree with you that we, as humans, tend to embrace rational explanations due to its simplicity of process. As if implying there's a chain of events that can neatly lead us from event A to event B. Or C, D, etc. However, these explanations more than based on rationality, seem based on the familiar, the current. Ockham, a famous philosopher from the 14th century, even stated that between two or more competing hypothesis that can accurately explain a single phenomenon, we should always choose the simplest one. Something that became known as Ockham's razor. But I'd argue that you can have simple neat non-rational explanations that can explain events rationally. As you pointed out, you can group some of them as emotions. Love. Hatred. Jealousy, Anger, Envy, Ambition (and yes, this almost seems like a 7 deadly sins list. Coincidence???). Other "non-rational" rational explanations might involve morals or feelings of duty, just to point a few. You name any of these and you have great chances that people will understand what you mean and deem it rational. "The heart has reasons that reason itself doesn't know about", can often be heard, as if to justify this.
But getting back to the beginning, I'd like to call your attention to a Arthur Conan Doyle quote. Sherlock Holmes, known for his rationality, would often say that to find a solution to a problem, "you simply remove the impossible. Whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". This would put the answer not in the neat simple package Ockham and most but not all humans prefer, but in the explanation which might best satisfy all we know about something.
Does this deems rational thinking above all else? Absolutely not. As you pointed out, irrational thinking does have its advantages. It does spark evolution. In arts, science, life. By fueling desires, dreams, feelings, and everything else in between, we can promote innovation, different ways of seeing a problem and even dealing with it. We can improve ourselves and the world around us. The Laughing Buddha story does seem an excellent example of someone who practicing only the irrational managed to achieve enlightenment and to lead people into Nirvana. And, do correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember a single being reaching enlightenment with a rational, logical thinking. Usually, you have a leap of faith at some point. Something outside the grid that pushes you forth. It might happen at the beginning of the process. Or nearing the end. I would agree with you when you say we should embrace these leaps of faith, these bursts of irrationality and use them to our best advantage. But I would suggest keeping them side by side. Left brain/right brain. Both of them working together, even if in their own ways, to take us to better heights.
Sorry about all the ramble. I only intended to comment on the improbability thing, and things just grew from there.
@BhimaBeausoleil In the game, they actually say irrational and thus my use of the word. You are correct that there is value in rational thinking. Certainly I don't think we should toss it out. I just sometimes see people who hate on irrational thinking (ironically enough) and focus on putting rational thinking on a pedestal. Each has their place and purpose.