The problem with evidence

Whether it is ghosts, UFOs, or big foot; evidence generally falls in one of three categories. I think the general consensus of researchers and investigators will classify research that is readily explainable as the lowest rung of evidence. On the next rung we place evidence that is inconclusive. And finally, on the top rung, we have the proverbial smoking gun, or Holy Grail.
Many researchers embrace and then present inconclusive evidence within the grip of a seemingly satisfied optimism. This is a huge mistake in my opinion. Holding up inconclusive evidence as valid evidence simply because it hasn’t been debunked is a serious disservice to our collective causes. Yet across the web, countless people are doing just that.
In ghost hunter circles it can be orbs and mists. In the uflology community it may be space debris or reflections on an awkwardly angled aircraft. Regardless, the problem inconclusive evidence presents is clear. The quality of the evidence is often so poor that it can’t be debunked. So, while that picture of a UFO may, by definition, actually be a UFO, It may also be a bird, and airplane, or your aunt’s Grand Marquis.
Inconclusive evidence is in fact the worst evidence. It is more worthless than debunked evidence simply because it lends no meaningful credence or forward progress to the discussion. It serves only to further cloud and already muddled controversy.
That is why as investigators, it is our duty to make every effort to debunk out own research. Being able to objectively analyze and challenge our work will increase our credibility as researchers.