I find an all too common mistake being made by amateur scientist individuals.

They see a problem like earthquakes, devise a theory to explain them and then look for facts to support the theory.

This is exactly backward. In science, you see a bunch of facts, devise a theory to explain them and look for more facts.

If new facts don't fit the theory you change the theory until it fits all the facts or you abandon the theory entirely and come up with a new one.

Individuals I have evaluated will go to any length to support their theory, including attacking me when they fail.

Roger