In  her post about UFOs and Aliens OneEyeDiva called herself a 'skeptical' believer. I know that she applies 'critical thinking' rational analysis to those issues among others. I do the same about most everything...including mainstream science, which I've read a great deal of in the last half century. Quite frankly I am less incline to just accept results of studies and pronouncements by scientists and reputable science magazines than I was when I was a teen.  It seems to me the field often plays to the masses...using startling (and often misleading) titles for articles.  So I consider the possible 'flaws' in both their methods and conclusions, and am often appalled at how easily and frequently I find major  flaws in  their processes.

Ironically 'paranormal' studies have become more rigorous, especially when conducted by 'believers' such as OED and myself. People like Dean Radin are  meticulous in  how they conduct research. The Scole Afterlife Experiments were so carefully conducted the essentially 'converted' a scientist invited to observe and evaluate their  processes and results. (There is a film on Netflix about them.)

 It took me a long time for  a variety of reasons but at this stage of my life i'll believe my personal experience over the most respected scientists 'theories' about spirituality, odd phenomena etc any day...the sheer  volume of it, and random timing.  The fact that  some of it even somewhat 'objective'--ie outside observer confirmed my experience tho they were not aware of my perceptions at the time it  was happening.  Having been  raised  by a father who forced us to think and support our opinions..i tend to look for  'mundane' (non paranormal/supernatural) explanations first..save perhaps with spirits/ghosts...I've had so much interaction  with them that I tend  to view it  as 'normal'. Too much has been verified.    But for me all of it is approached with Margaret Mead's attitude toward UFO's (It is not a question of belief, the question is 'what is actually happening, what are they?').  To get an accurate answer you start by looking for the most simple answer. That is not always an answer that has a foundation in currently accepted scientific 'facts' and/or theories.  You can't explain a 'strange light' as "Venus" when a look at an ephemeris will show Venus not visible in that locale at that time.  You also have to consider factors like movement, speed etc. 

Ok..a start...tell me how you approach  figuring out and categorizing phenomena????