Although yours is a reasonable position for getting along in society, and therefore rational to some degree, I think I would have to call it "weakly" rational rather than "strongly" rational: you are willing to accept the meme which has gained the most mindshare rather than attempting to assess the relative merits of each meme.

There is certainly a high degree of reliability in this technique, but it has two drawbacks:

• one: It forces you to reject your own rational conclusions when the evidence seems, as you understand it, to contradict the "expert consensus"
• two: It forces you to reject, possibly without cause, the rationality of experts who dissent from this consensus
• three (three drawbacks): It overlooks the possibility that the "expert consensus" has been manipulated for reasons other than maximum fidelity to the truth
• four (amongst the drawbacks are such diverse elements as...): It overlooks the possibility that the majority of the experts forming this consensus may have their own reasons for stating or reaching a false conclusion.

I submit the following principle: An expert should always be willing to at least try to explain her/his position on any subject on which there is disagreement.

It seems to me an integral part of the rational worldview that analysis of expert opinions can be subject to lay evaluation. You take the explanations offered by the various experts, with all their experience and understanding of the field, and keep track of each point raised by each side, and whether it has been satisfactorily answered (and whether the answer has been rebutted, etc.).

If, for example, Expert B consistently offers rational refutations of points raised by Expert A, while Expert A consistently offers points which have already been refuted by Expert B, you might begin to suspect that Expert A is being less than honest and does not really have a case.

As far as I can see, this has been the situation with Intelligent Design, global warming denial -- and the official story of 9/11.