Doesn't cladistics represent science going nuts?

Biological systematists that are called "cladists" believe that there is a true "tree of life" to be found, and spend their time and our money searching for it. Now, if there really is such a true "tree of life" to be found, how can cladists then know when they have found it?

If this true "tree", as cladists themselves claim, is the "tree" that requires the fewest number of explanations on the origin of traits among organisms, then there isn't any such tree at all, since classification is ultimately paradoxically contradictory, which we can figure out ourselves but which Bertrand Russell also demonstrated already in 1901 (that is, before the origin of cladistics), because it means that there are at least two such "trees". If so, then cladists will thus search forever for their true "tree of life", because there simply isn't any single such thing to be found.

So, can there possibly be another true "tree of life" (ie, one that doesn't minimize the number of explanations on the origin of traits among organisms) to be found? If so, then there will also be a mirror image of this "tree" actually representing the other side of the same real "tree" (ie, the true "tree" seen from the other side). How can cladists then distinguish which of these two true "trees" that represent the true "tree" (when both actually do)?

The existence of such a true "tree of life" does thus appear to be a practical impossibility. Instead, the belief in it appears to be a conflation of representation with the represented (ie, class with object). It gives rise to the questions: how can we pay cladists for a search for a practically impossible belief? Doesn't cladistics actually represent science (in this case biological systematics) going nuts into its own classification?