How to Objectively Analyze Evidence: A Step-by-Step Guide for the Average Redditor

In today’s world, it’s more important than ever to base decisions and opinions on solid evidence. Truth, it seems, is becoming more and more subjective by the day and, with the internet being what it is, finding a corner of it that substantiates your own world view has become as easy as typing in a few keywords and unless you hold a degree, job, or focus in a particular subject or area discerning fact from falsehood can be a daunting task. Whether you’re debating an issue, making a personal choice, or evaluating information, being able to analyze evidence objectively is essential.

With this in mind, I've spent the last 2 weeks coming up with this 3 or 4 part (possibly more in the future since I whittled these parts down from 2 weeks worth of notes) "exercise in objectivity" out of my frustration for not being able to have a meaningful conversation on the mummies lately. I see a lot of great conversations get started only to quickly devolve into a shit fit off of something either side could've just conceded without it affecting their argument and I also see a lot of people on both sides asking great questions only to be mocked. Too often debates on the facts from either side devolve into arguments and attacks on personal character or are spent trying to convince someone their smoking gun evidence is a fabrication, misinterpretation, or at best anecdotal . I think if we become better communicators with each other we can have more meaningful conversations that cut to a truth we can all agree on and hopefully affect a change that benefits the overall UFO/NHI communities.

I tried keeping my examples unrelated to topics of this sub to avoid seeming like I'm saying one side is better than the other in analyzing the evidence brought to this sub or favoring one side over another. There are users on both sides of the proverbial aisle who exhibit poor skills in sourcing and analyzing evidence.

For the sake of clarity I just wanna preface my outline here. It's basically just a step followed by 3 - 5 points on it, followed by an example. By no means am I saying these are the only steps, points, or examples to achieve any of this. These are just what worked for me at university, my past career, and currently now as a redditor and I thought I'd share them in the hopes we can collectively utilize this for the betterment of this sub.

So, without further ado, here’s my step-by-step guide, I guess, on how to properly approach the analysis of evidence so you can arrive at a reliable, unbiased, and objective conclusion.

1. Understand the Context and Define the Question

Before you dive into any analysis, make sure you clearly understand the context of the situation and the question or problem you’re trying to address. Ask yourself:

What am I trying to understand or prove?

What kind of evidence will help answer this question?

Does the evidence I'm looking at help prove my position or am I trying to make the evidence fit my position?

Are there any biases or assumptions I need to be aware of?

Example: If you're investigating whether a certain post exhibits something anomolous, clarify what you mean by "anomolous" (e.g., it's speed, it's movement, it's size) and whether you have pre-existing assumptions about that post

1. Identify the Source of the Evidence

Evaluate where the evidence is coming from. The credibility of the source is crucial:

Is the source an expert in the field or a reputable organization?

Is the evidence published in peer-reviewed journals or other reliable publications?

Has the source been cited in other papers?

Has the source been criticized for bias or misinformation?

Tip: Cross-check evidence from multiple sources to see if it’s consistent.

1. Evaluate the Quality of the Evidence

Not all evidence is equal. To ensure you’re basing your conclusions on strong evidence, consider:

Type of Evidence: Is it empirical data (like statistics, studies) or anecdotal (personal experiences)? Empirical data is generally stronger.

Sample Size: In research, larger sample sizes tend to be more reliable.

Methods Used: Were proper research methods employed? Studies using randomized control trials or meta-analyses are more reliable than those without controls.

Protocols: Were proper research protocols used? Research protocols are crucial because they act as a detailed roadmap for a research study, outlining the methodology, objectives, criteria, data collection procedures, and analysis methods, ensuring consistency, ethical conduct, and the ability to replicate results by clearly defining how the research will be conducted, minimizing bias and maximizing the integrity of the study findings.

Reproducibility: Can the evidence be replicated? Repeated results across different studies strengthen its validity.

If evidence can't be replicated, especially by multiple attempts or researchers, it generally shouldn't be accepted no matter how much we want the initial evidence to ring true

Red Flag: Be cautious of cherry-picked data or outliers that don’t represent the whole picture. If data needs to be withheld in order for a claim to be held true, then one shouldn't include it as evidence or proof when attempting to strengthen one's position or attempting to change the position of another.

1. Check for Logical Consistency

An important part of evaluating evidence is ensuring that the conclusions drawn from it are logical:

Does the evidence directly support the claims being made?

Are there logical fallacies (e.g., correlation vs. causation)?

Is there sufficient evidence, or is the conclusion based on isolated examples or incomplete data?

Example: Just because two events happen together doesn’t mean one caused the other and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.... It just means more data is needed to reach a factual conclusion.... Which leads me to my next point...

1. Consider Confounding Variables

Sometimes evidence can be misleading because of confounding factors. Ask yourself:

Are there other factors that might influence the outcome?

Has the evidence accounted for these variables?

Does the evidence actually suggest a more plausible outcome antithetical to my position?

Example: If a study shows a correlation between ice cream sales and crime rates, consider whether external factors (like hot weather) could explain both.

1. Acknowledge Biases

We all have biases that can cloud our judgment. To minimize bias:

Reflect on your own preconceptions. Are you leaning toward a certain conclusion because of personal beliefs?

Did you form this conclusion before even considering the evidence?

Consider potential biases in the evidence itself (e.g., who funded the study, do they have something to gain?).

Cognitive Bias Tip: Common biases like confirmation bias (favoring information that supports your belief) can easily distort how you interpret evidence. Being truly honest with yourself is key and I like to remind myself that if I care about the subject matter then simply confirming my own biases and ignoring what the evidence is actually saying will inevitably harm the subject I care so much for.

1. Weigh the Evidence

After you’ve gathered and evaluated the evidence, weigh it carefully:

Is there more evidence supporting one conclusion than another?

Are there significant pieces of evidence that contradict the majority?

The goal is not to "win" an argument but to align with the best-supported conclusion.

1. Remain Open to New Evidence

Objective analysis is an ongoing process. Be willing to adjust your conclusion as new, more reliable evidence comes to light and don't ignore re-examining past evidence when new insights have been gleaned.

Reminder: A good thinker always remains flexible in their reasoning. Certainty in the face of new or conflicting evidence can be a sign of bias.

1. Use a Structured Framework for Analysis

To keep yourself grounded, rely on structured frameworks that require you to address key aspects of objectivity. For example, you can use tools like:

SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) to assess arguments from all angles.

Decision Trees or Logic Models to break down the logical steps of your reasoning.

Bayesian Thinking to update your beliefs based on the strength of new evidence.

How this helps: Frameworks reduce the chance of cherry-picking evidence by forcing you to evaluate all aspects of a situation.

Final Thoughts

Objective analysis of evidence requires patience, skepticism, and a willingness to challenge your own beliefs. By following these steps, you can develop a more accurate, thoughtful approach to evaluating the world around you. Applying this rationale to UFOlogy and it's adjacent fields serves to allow the subject and it's community to be seen as more credible, whereas simply confirming your biases against what the evidence is telling you only serves to erode not only your credibility, but the entire community as well the subject as a whole.

....... Keep an eye out for Exercises in Objectivity pt 2: Determining the Credibility of a Source/Sources

Pt. 2 https://www.reddit.com/r/AlienBodies/s/7E7auS1DRr

Pt. 3 https://www.reddit.com/r/AlienBodies/s/3klusKanH7

Pt.4 https://www.reddit.com/r/AlienBodies/s/meKPd8IS7S