Why should the person who actually applies a critical eye to discover the truth be forced with the burden of proof just because the illogical answer is what's socially accepted?
My logic, jazzo, is that when you opinion differs from the vast majority of informed people, which is more likely: (a) that one person (you) is illogical, or (b) that every one of hundreds (them) is illogical? A decent humility suggests the former; it seems a tad presumptuous to suppose otherwise. That's not dispositive, but it does indicate where the burden of proof lies.
This, or course, does not equally apply to those areas where an opinion is likely to be reached for emotive rather than informed reasons. And please note that I am speaking of informed opinions.
Put more pithily: In a dispute between one person and the universe, I will (absent special reason) put my bet on the universe.
(Parenthically: you and I may be using the phrase Ockham's Razor differently. As I understand the term, the razor also argues for presuming (a) over (b).)
