I don't get why this logic violates intuition. The proposed solution in the article is fairly obvious and intuitive. Just because two logical statements are equivalent doesn't mean evidence for one gives evidence for the other:

"The origin of the paradox lies in the fact that the statements "all Ravens are black" and "all non-black things are non-ravens" are indeed logically equivalent, while the act of finding a black raven is not at all equivalent to finding a non-black non-raven. Confusion is common when these two notions are thought to be identical."