The thing about Vulcans is they raise some really interesting questions about what logic actually *is* on like a conceptual level
Like obviously Vulcans on Trek do things all the time that aren't "logical" to us, the viewer, or even other characters. Like sarek's poor parenting choices don't seem particularly logical to anyone who knows anything about children.
Obviously part of this is that "logic over emotion" isn't something Vulcans inherently are as much as something they aspire to and have to work at (see: Tuvok being a moody teenager). And it's more interesting television to observe and talk about the way they fall at that.
But I like to think that on a philosophical level true logic is unobtainable. We all experience our own subjective reality so it is impossible to be truly objective on the level Vulcans aspire to. We, the viewers, have a more objective view than any of the characters because we have far more context - we see personal, private moments that give far more understanding into where characters are coming from.
And the viewers are STILL far from objective because our relationship with the text is informed by our own emotional reactions and subjective experiences. From my perspective, the most "logical" star trek character is later seasons Michael Burnham - her direct communication style resonates with me and gets results; her emotional responses are always appropriate to the situation; she's good at making the utilitarian choice even when it's at odds with her emotional response; and she's very good at inferring and understanding the context of the situation she's in and where other people are coming from.
But she's hardly the classic example of Vulcan emotionless logic, and I'm sure many other trek viewers would argue that many other characters are the most logical. And viewers are always arguing over the best approach the characters could take. Even if you had two Vulcans watching star trek, they could come up with different conclusions about the show - even with a viewer's much broader context - because their logic is still informed by their own subjective experiences.
Even a writer with the benefit of context, foresight, hindsight, and complete narrative control (all things many trek writers do without) cannot be objective because they bring their own experiences and biases to what they're writing.
I just find it fascinating (haha) that true objectivity (how Vulcans practically define logic) is impossible in both the Watsonian and Doylist sense. Watsonian in that there is no true "logic" in universe because all Vulcans have their own subjective experiences of reality. Doylist in that the writers' definition of logic is informed by their own biases. Subjective objectivity.