To be or not to be?

Evidence - Again

So who is to say evidence is evidence? do we really take this person at their word or do we use caution when accepting potential evidence as proof?

Here is the problem with evidence. Most evidence is presented by one person, who was the only one around at that time and is claiming this is proof of paranormal. How are we to know this? We weren't there, we can only speculate what really happened. Only the person who is presenting the evidence really knows what happened and do we trust them enough to take them at their word for it?
If you are any type of investigator you need to take all evidence with a grain of salt. If you don't believe what is presented to you, it's ok. As an investigator you need to be skeptical of things presented to you and "investigate" into the possibilities of what happened. If a police detective took one look at a murder scene and a bystander he's never met before came up and said "this person fell onto that knife sticking out of his back", does the detective write off the incident as an accident right away and call it case closed? Or does he know to trust his instincts and do his own investigation into what happened by digging deeper to find out that the bystander owns a knife shop, had an argument with the murder victim and eventually stabbed him in the back with a knife that had his fingerprints on it?.
I think you can see my point. This isn't police work but it is very close to it. Take caution when accepting things right off the bat. Not everything is what it seems. Do your own analysis and make your own conculsions based off of fact, not what someone is telling you is fact.