I don't see anything "illogical" about it. Perhaps you can elaborate? If chemicals controlled our brain, like the medical field and psychiatry has believed (and appears to largely still believe), depression which, in this reductive view, is purely a chemical imbalance. This is why anti-depressants are often quickly given to anyone suffering from depression. But if this was actually true, the anti-depressants must be hyper-effective. The direct effect is however relatively miniscule.
Hesitating from saying that our brain works in any highly specific way (chemicals controlling our brain) and stating that we barely know how the brain functions is hardly contradictory. Also, the support in my small 3-sentence paragraph is the replication crisis: Somewhere around half of all studies published within psychology and medicine is proven false within 1 year after publishing. That is not a healthy and normal figure in science, it is abyssmal, and that's only the studies being tested. This attest to the fact that there are major fundamental misunderstandings and fundamental assumptions within each field which are completely incorrect. Fruit from a sick tree, you could say. That is the support in my short paragraph, it was just summed up by "the replication crisis".

It's definitely the word "control" I react on. Again, it strikes me as overly reductive. There is a significant difference between saying that hormones can control, i.e. dictate, our emotions, and saying that they play an important role in how our emotions emerge and function.

I was actually not talking at all about what you initially replied to regarding emotional experience.