This paper seeks to raise awareness among educational researchers and practitioners of some significant weaknesses and internal contradictions of randomised control trials (RCTs). Although critiques throughout the years from education scholars have pointed to the detrimental effects of this experimental approach on education practice and values, RCTs are considered the "gold standard" for assessing the impact of education policies and interventions. By drawing on the approach of immanent critique, we elucidate substantial argumentative gaps between the assumptions and applications -- that is, between the theory and reality -- of RCTs in empirical research. This kind of analytic exercise complements existing critiques from outside the experimental discourse based on moral and epistemic principles. The present paper, in contrast, contributes to the literature by highlighting internal limitations and contradictions that can be seen by probing the logic espoused by those who are proponents of RCTs. In fleshing out our argument, we seek to encourage more informed and critical engagement by educators, policymakers, and researchers, among other stakeholders, when they are confronted with proposals for education programmes and reforms supported by findings from RCTs.