Occam's Razor: Doesn't apply to human nature?

[Mithcoriel]

So, I was sitting in the car with my uncle and cousin, and they were chatting about conspiracy theories, about Obama, Zeitgeist, whatever. My cousin said that you should be at least a bit openminded toward such theories. (He's not some kind of nutjob, he was just saying you shouldn't dismiss everything outright)

My uncle then made an example of a conspiracy theory (something along the lines of Obama and Hillary Clinton once having met in a secret place, when the media thought they were at Hillary's home, and that they there received orders from someone, forgot how it went, but whatever...) and pointed out that that theory just had way too many unproven assumptions in it.
"Occam's razor!" I piped. My cousin replied: "I was just going to say: I hate it when people use Occam's razor like that. That's so ignorant! Occam's razor applies to science, not to human nature."

So, I'm wondering about that. Is that true? I don't care about the Obama conspiracy theories, just this thing with Occam's razor. I can't imagine that it wouldn't apply to humans.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Here's the thing: any individual human will likely be less reliable than science as a whole. The whole point of science is that it works to eliminate the individual human bias, in favor of the closest we can get to objective fact.

The Occam's Razor thing comes in here: if there is someone or someones able to meet with two of the most powerful people in American politics, are they not powerful enough to keep it secret? Are they not powerful or smart enough to intercept both candidates months or years before the election is underway and the candidates are under constant scrutiny?

In all conspiracy theories, the power required to commit the proposed conspiracy is understood to be so great that no conspiracy of that scope would ever be required.