Anatomy of a Claimant

I've been mulling over two different scenarios, and how I would respond in each case.

First, let's say that I was the promoter of a fantastic claim, and I not only believed in this claim very strongly, but had verified that the claim was true. As a scientist, my tool for this would have been the double-blind trial: the only surefire way to eliminate the possibility that I was just kidding myself. How would I react to the Randi Challenge?

First, I would certainly take it. I would follow the letter of the Challenge, and do everything required of me by Randi, because I would want to bend over backwards to avoid any perception that I was trying to be in any way difficult. I would agree to most any condition Randi insisted on, as the truthfulness of my claims would give me such an overwhelming advantage that I could afford to be generous. In return, my list of conditions would be short or nonexistent. After all, it's Randi's Challenge, and Randi's money, not mine. If I'm right and know it, I require nothing but a fair chance to prove my claim. No matter how high my self-confidence, I would keep my comments relatively modest, like "We think we stand a good chance of winning your Challenge". Because who likes a braggart? If Randi happens to respond with rudeness or belittlement, I would take great pains to avoid responding in kind. Because everybody loves a gentleman, and is inclined to think he has something on the ball.

Now let's say that I was the promoter of a fantastic claim, but down in the deepest parts of my psyche (the part that I try to avoid looking at as much as possible), there was at least a strong suspicion that it was all total nonsense. But maybe I've become so emotionally invested in the subject that I can't back out now. Maybe there's money involved. But bottom-line, it's in my best interests for the nonsense to continue. How then do I react to the Randi Challenge?

It would be preferable to ignore it, but to my great annoyance, people keep throwing it in my face when I'm promoting my fantastic claims. In my heart of hearts, I know that I'll never win the Challenge. How do I resolve this frustrating dilemma?

I would have to engineer a situation where I could later make the claim that I applied for the Randi Challenge, but was "turned down". I have to invent an image of Randi "running scared" from the sacred truth I was promoting.

So I would send an e-mail to Randi, and refer to that as my acceptance of the Challenge, pretending not to know that the terms of the Challenge involve sending in a signed, notarized form. I would insist upon condition upon condition, all designed to give the appearance to an observer that Randi could not be trusted with someone's lunch money, much less to administer the tests fairly. At the same time, I would make remarks such that the money was practically mine already, and pretend to a concern about collection.

I would work diligently on affecting an air of exuded confidence. But still, I would discuss lawyers, as though my winning the Challenge and Randi refusing to hand me my money were something which had already occurred, and not just a personal fantasy.

I would invoke some scientific-sounding principle in support of my claim. It would be best to pull from some scientific oddity sufficiently well-known among laymen to be a subject of cocktail party conversations and sf TV shows, but of course I would put my own spin on it, or maybe turn it on it's head. Whether it had any conceivable connection with my claim is, of course, irrelevant. After all, the goal is merely to make my promotions sound vaguely scientific to anyone largely unacquainted with real science (which is to say, the vast majority of people).

If Randi tosses an insult my way, I'll respond with one well below the belt. If my enemy's not going to be a gentleman, why should I be? I would prefer that Randi come to hate me to the extent that he would view any further dealings with me with extreme distaste.

As my spurious claim on the Challenge progressed, I would need to continue to pile condition upon condition to the Challenge, rewriting it as though it were my own Challenge and my own money, until any potential agreement finally collapses under the ponderous weight of it all. The goal is to provoke Randi until he throws his hands up in the air in disgust and frustration, and walks away.

At last we have achieved what we sought from the outset. From now on, we can regale potential customers or converts with the story of how Randi "refused to allow us to take the Challenge".

Now I ask anyone capable of looking at this objectively: Who is following which scenario?
 

Regards,
Mike Combs