-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Paola Harris
- Thread starter Rocketsauce
- Start date
Particle Physicist
Paranormal Novice
Sorry, I forgot to say what I actually wanted to. Despite David's feelings I actually enjoyed the show, initially I found the choice of guess odd and an ill fit with the Paracast, however that was before listening to the show. Gene and David did a fantastic job I feel and it was a very enjoyable show, perhaps not for the reasons the presenters wanted it to be but they did a great job with what they had to work with.
I think they reinforced their credibility in this episode and they showed how the field should be studied. Also perhaps Paola will take something away from it and add more rigor to her reporting? Well, one can hope.
I'm not one for forums and basically said what I wanted to say about Quantum Theory.
The last thing I want to say is that as most people know the word Para comes from the Latin meaning beyond. Hence, Paranormal; beyond normal. There are many things that we take for granted today that just a hundred years ago would be considered beyond normal experience, the way this changed is that people took the problems seriously and studied them.
Thank you Gene and David for helping to bring some logic to this field of inquiry.
I think they reinforced their credibility in this episode and they showed how the field should be studied. Also perhaps Paola will take something away from it and add more rigor to her reporting? Well, one can hope.
I'm not one for forums and basically said what I wanted to say about Quantum Theory.
The last thing I want to say is that as most people know the word Para comes from the Latin meaning beyond. Hence, Paranormal; beyond normal. There are many things that we take for granted today that just a hundred years ago would be considered beyond normal experience, the way this changed is that people took the problems seriously and studied them.
Thank you Gene and David for helping to bring some logic to this field of inquiry.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
I've got the impression they've (or at least one of them) tried to get her on long ago, but she ignored them. Hopefully Gene will correct me if I'm wrong.
humanoidfigure
Paranormal Novice
Ouch. That interview was painful. 
Graphimancer
Skilled Investigator
Wow. I just listened to this episode.
I congratulate Gene and David for their self control. They let this woman hang herself in inconsistencies and soft logic long before they started questioning her hard. When she gave her explanation of quantum cosmology, even I wanted to yell at her, and I'm a quiet, reasoned, academic minded type of guy.
Normally, I find the after episode guest roasting a little hard. This time it seemed warranted. I had a low opinion of Exo-Politics already, but this nailed the coffin shut and buried it six feet under for me.
At the very end of the show, Gene asks what other shows would do what they've done, expose the fakir? I think this was important, because at last one of the hosts states one tenants of the Paracast. I have mixed feelings about this one level, because I would prefer the show to be balanced and search for answers without having an "angle." On the other hand, the hosts are good at this, and good at giving the guest enough rope to hang themselves before Gene and Dave crack open the inconsistencies.
So, I disagree: This show was not a trainwreck, as Mr. Biedny asserts. I think it was hosts in top form, doing what they are good, and defining the Paracast's role.
I've stopped listening to most other paranormal shows, because most are too soft and accepting, giving any guest a free ride to spout endlessly without challenge. These people often spin entertaining science fantasy, but there ends their uses.
I congratulate Gene and David for their self control. They let this woman hang herself in inconsistencies and soft logic long before they started questioning her hard. When she gave her explanation of quantum cosmology, even I wanted to yell at her, and I'm a quiet, reasoned, academic minded type of guy.
Normally, I find the after episode guest roasting a little hard. This time it seemed warranted. I had a low opinion of Exo-Politics already, but this nailed the coffin shut and buried it six feet under for me.
At the very end of the show, Gene asks what other shows would do what they've done, expose the fakir? I think this was important, because at last one of the hosts states one tenants of the Paracast. I have mixed feelings about this one level, because I would prefer the show to be balanced and search for answers without having an "angle." On the other hand, the hosts are good at this, and good at giving the guest enough rope to hang themselves before Gene and Dave crack open the inconsistencies.
So, I disagree: This show was not a trainwreck, as Mr. Biedny asserts. I think it was hosts in top form, doing what they are good, and defining the Paracast's role.
I've stopped listening to most other paranormal shows, because most are too soft and accepting, giving any guest a free ride to spout endlessly without challenge. These people often spin entertaining science fantasy, but there ends their uses.
Grokl
Aussie Investigator
I have to admit that this is pretty much where I am at.
About 5 minutes into the "interview" (later to become a very good interrogation of someone who is a Maximum BS artist) I felt that she was literally drowning in crap.
The whole Image expert/ Meier pics section was cringe material. Some say you cant argue with an idiot. Kudos Dave, you held it together mate.
Well done to Gene and Dave. Personally I would have invited her back for another round with her "friends" to make a great team debate for us all to listen into.
I'll keep listening, as I find these "vague" imbeciles fascinating - and somewhat intriging as to their shallow beliefs and their stupid ideas. For me this episode will be listened to for quite a while - whenever I need a laugh. Cheers. Well done!!
Rocketsauce
Haagen-Dazs Addict
I just finished the show, I think we all agree these types of episodes have value and serve a purpose. I did find myself cringing sometimes because of how awkward it must have been 
I think many people in the UFO field are so isolated from real legit researchers in the mainstream and so insulated in their pie in the sky clicks, that they don't realize at how crappy their methods really are.
I think a contributing element in this is the lack of credibility this topic has in academia. If real academics were able to get grants to study this stuff then I think the wheat from the chaff would be separated more organically and the pseudo researchers would be pushed more to the fringe of this field instead of being the majority of the voices that we hear in this space.
Basically, Paola might as well be working for the Enquirer, although to give the Enquirer some credit, they did uncover the John Edwards affair strangely enough
I think many people in the UFO field are so isolated from real legit researchers in the mainstream and so insulated in their pie in the sky clicks, that they don't realize at how crappy their methods really are.
I think a contributing element in this is the lack of credibility this topic has in academia. If real academics were able to get grants to study this stuff then I think the wheat from the chaff would be separated more organically and the pseudo researchers would be pushed more to the fringe of this field instead of being the majority of the voices that we hear in this space.
Basically, Paola might as well be working for the Enquirer, although to give the Enquirer some credit, they did uncover the John Edwards affair strangely enough
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Yeah, what did you say to David to make him have her on? He just see your trailer? I know David was aware of her before. She's with project camelot right?
valiens
Skilled Investigator
I dunno. I'm just a patsy, man.
7 String
All things 7
I've heard worse,,,,,, at least she spoke did'nt speak like a valley girl...lol. I did think at one point towards the end as you were calling her out on the Billy Mier shit that you were going to jump through the screen and crush her skull.
You guys are so god damn mean!
So who's on the list for next week, are we going for 3....lol
Sometimes you have to take interviews like this to bring an awareness to the community. I personally never heard of her so it was eye opening for me. Had I ever gone one of lectures I would have fuk'n flipped if I ever heard her say that Billy Mier is the real deal. I've witness cow shit flying through the air in a shit fight that look more like a UFO then anything from the mier camp.
Until next week! "UP THE IRONS"...
~A
You guys are so god damn mean!
So who's on the list for next week, are we going for 3....lol
Sometimes you have to take interviews like this to bring an awareness to the community. I personally never heard of her so it was eye opening for me. Had I ever gone one of lectures I would have fuk'n flipped if I ever heard her say that Billy Mier is the real deal. I've witness cow shit flying through the air in a shit fight that look more like a UFO then anything from the mier camp.
Until next week! "UP THE IRONS"...
~A
CapnG
Devil's Advocate
Man oh man... that was some ride. Intially, I was actually feeling sympathy for poor Paola (I'm a softie, I know) but that choked and died the minute she laid out this chestnut: "Now science and quantum physics are moving towards the paranormal!" Sigh... no, Paola. The paranormal has glom'd on to quantum physics in a desperate bid for legitimacy. Cart before horse and all that.
I think you guys need to do less fishing in your interviews with people like Paola, after all, what's the point of fishing in a sterile pond? People like Paoloa need to have it spelled out for them in small words so they can understand your viewpoint and thus offer up a coherent answer. For instance, when you ask how she knows they're extra-terrestrial and she responds "Because my inside contacts have told me." there's no point in trying to weasle names out of her right away, you're not getting your question answered. Instead, press the issue by asking "How do they (these sources) know they're extra-terrestrial?" And as she waffles in search of an answer, bring up disinfo, the mud surrounding Roswell, etc. Make sure she understands that you don't buy it just because someone else says so and really drive home the point. Then can you advance.
Meier. God, do we have to? Okay, just one thing and it kinda relates to what I just said. Her point is she went there and met the guy. My question is... so? A conman is a conman whether or not I meet him at his home or on the street. And as for what's "sprung up" around him, it's not Horny-toad who's writing these "prophecies", it's MEIER. He IS the guru. He IS the cult.
I do think you railed against her unfairly in regards to the matter of the pictures, though David (possibly your expert-itus flaring up again). When those of us who aren't image experts say "photos" we usually mean "prints". It's alright if you want to ask if she saw negatives but when she says no, that's what she means.
As to the photos themselves, we all know where that goes. And the fact that she knows nothing about the dinosaurs and probably doesn't know about the satellites and pictures of "Asket" either shows just how much "research" she's really done...
I wouldn't say this episode was enjoyable but I would say it was necessary... like eating your vegetables. And speaking of a healthy colon, I too found the comparison to Sarah Palin amusing, although it's frighteneing to realize that if you drop one R and swap the O for an N, Paola Harris is actually an anagram for Sarah Palin!
I think you guys need to do less fishing in your interviews with people like Paola, after all, what's the point of fishing in a sterile pond? People like Paoloa need to have it spelled out for them in small words so they can understand your viewpoint and thus offer up a coherent answer. For instance, when you ask how she knows they're extra-terrestrial and she responds "Because my inside contacts have told me." there's no point in trying to weasle names out of her right away, you're not getting your question answered. Instead, press the issue by asking "How do they (these sources) know they're extra-terrestrial?" And as she waffles in search of an answer, bring up disinfo, the mud surrounding Roswell, etc. Make sure she understands that you don't buy it just because someone else says so and really drive home the point. Then can you advance.
Meier. God, do we have to? Okay, just one thing and it kinda relates to what I just said. Her point is she went there and met the guy. My question is... so? A conman is a conman whether or not I meet him at his home or on the street. And as for what's "sprung up" around him, it's not Horny-toad who's writing these "prophecies", it's MEIER. He IS the guru. He IS the cult.
I do think you railed against her unfairly in regards to the matter of the pictures, though David (possibly your expert-itus flaring up again). When those of us who aren't image experts say "photos" we usually mean "prints". It's alright if you want to ask if she saw negatives but when she says no, that's what she means.
As to the photos themselves, we all know where that goes. And the fact that she knows nothing about the dinosaurs and probably doesn't know about the satellites and pictures of "Asket" either shows just how much "research" she's really done...
I wouldn't say this episode was enjoyable but I would say it was necessary... like eating your vegetables. And speaking of a healthy colon, I too found the comparison to Sarah Palin amusing, although it's frighteneing to realize that if you drop one R and swap the O for an N, Paola Harris is actually an anagram for Sarah Palin!
G
glenn40
Guest
I really enjoyed right at the end when Gene was saying how no other paranormal show does what they do. that was the best closing and so true. loved that.
eb
eb
skunkape
Paranormal Maven
WhiteNoise
Paranormal Novice
Let me say I don't want to derail the topic here but I would like to respond to this and provide some resources for anyone interested. Understanding what is meant by "the observer affecting the results" in quantum physics is something I have been chasing for many years. You will have some educated science types (like Particle Physicists?) tell you it's like billiard balls bouncing around on a table (which is essentially just classical physics) and then you will find other educated scientists saying the exact opposite. As a result, I have concluded that the confusion on this topic probably has little to do with "new agers". If measuring with a photon affects the measurement because the photon is actually changing the results, then "uncertainty" is in our knowledge not in the real world. The thing we're measuring does have a speed and location, we just can't know what it is. That is in direct contradiction to other things I've read.
Some links to follow and read if interested:
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines...6/seedark.html
http://www.tardyon.de/ko2.htm
Here's a quote from the first site to get you started. You can see it responds directly to the explanation that Particle Physicists has given:
""An unobserved quantum entity is said to exist in a "coherent superposition" of all the possible "states" permitted by its "wave function." But as soon as an observer makes a measurement capable of distinguishing between these states the wave function "collapses", and the entity is forced into a single state.
Yet even this deliberately abstract language contains some misleading implications. One is that measurement requires direct physical intervention. Physicists often explain the uncertainty principle in this way:in measuring the position of a quantum entity, one inevitably blocks it off its course, losing information about its direction and about its phase, the relative position of its crests and troughs.."
The article, of course, goes on to disagree with this billiard ball type of explanation.
Also, the following book was written by a group of scientists claiming that the current academic study of quantum physics is lacking and leads many of today's scientists not to truly understand the implications of the theory. Most interesting was the author's story of spending some time as a student with Einstein discussing QM and finding that his academic training did not allow him to understand the enigma that Einstein apparently saw with the theory.
http://quantumenigma.com/
I'm not making any claims myself. I just wanted to post this to make it clear that this topic is seemingly more complex than many educated people realize.
Particle Physicist
Paranormal Novice
Firstly, I have to say I consider that more than a little unfair, this is a very complex field and to condense it down to simple analogy is very hard and it is not something I am skilled at doing.
You need to be careful of just reading things that reinforce a point of view rather than researching the whole field. For example I can find articles on the Internet that do a great job of explaining why the world is flat, of course this goes against a massive amount of evidence to the contrary. However imagine you are new to the question of Earth's geometrical configuration, I'm sure you would find these articles convincing.
All you are stating is that there are disagreements in Science, this is normal and healthy. If there wasn't, Science would not progress, disagreements are good, please don't mistake that for incompetence as this is how Science is meant to work.
However, you have to take it in context with the show, am I to understand you are supporting Paola Harris' Quantum Cosmology? When even she uses a Colbert-esk Truthiness to describe it. This kind of woo woo is what I am opposed to.
I'll repeat what I said a few posts back, Quantum Theory is strange.
There is a famous quote by Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". That was slightly tongue in cheek of course, Feynman understood perfectly well the maths behind Quantum Theory, he won the Nobel Prize for his developments of Quantum Electrodynamics. I think a better way of stating it would be to say, if you think you know all the implications of Quantum Mechanics, you need to look harder.
I the Famous Biologist JBS Haldane said this best in his quote: "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
There was a film released a few years ago called "What the #$%# do we know". For me, it is the epitome of the Woo Woo crowd. It attempts to use Science to justify a religious channeling cult and is just crap. There are many errors in this film but in summary; you simply can't take what happens in the quantum world and apply it to the macro world, that is nonsense.
To see that concept done better, there is a documentary series called "What we still don't know" from Channel 4 in the UK, that should be around on the net somewhere. It's still basic but fun to watch if you like populists of Science. If you want something deeper, their are many university lectures around on the net.
To this I have to say: WTF?
Where do you think these theories come from? It's not from some home schooled hick. I can see you are going for the Anti-intellectual dollar as seems to be popular in the USA. These theories come from "educated people", like I said above there are disagreements in the field, this is good and the way science works.
If you seriously want to look in to this, the only way you can do it is with the maths and it is hard. Any explanation that does not involve maths is an abstraction and is naturally flawed.
What I also fine ironic is that you link to the Quantum Enigma book, I take it you have read it? Now read the last paragraph of post 56 in this thread. I will also repeat again that you need research this thoroughly and not use Truthiness or what matches with what you want to believe, that is not science but religion. There are a lot of cherry picking & blatant misrepresentations in that book, for example see Michael Nauenberg's paper on it here:
http://physics.ucsc.edu/~michael/qefoundations.pdf
You need to be careful of just reading things that reinforce a point of view rather than researching the whole field. For example I can find articles on the Internet that do a great job of explaining why the world is flat, of course this goes against a massive amount of evidence to the contrary. However imagine you are new to the question of Earth's geometrical configuration, I'm sure you would find these articles convincing.
All you are stating is that there are disagreements in Science, this is normal and healthy. If there wasn't, Science would not progress, disagreements are good, please don't mistake that for incompetence as this is how Science is meant to work.
However, you have to take it in context with the show, am I to understand you are supporting Paola Harris' Quantum Cosmology? When even she uses a Colbert-esk Truthiness to describe it. This kind of woo woo is what I am opposed to.
I'll repeat what I said a few posts back, Quantum Theory is strange.
There is a famous quote by Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". That was slightly tongue in cheek of course, Feynman understood perfectly well the maths behind Quantum Theory, he won the Nobel Prize for his developments of Quantum Electrodynamics. I think a better way of stating it would be to say, if you think you know all the implications of Quantum Mechanics, you need to look harder.
I the Famous Biologist JBS Haldane said this best in his quote: "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
There was a film released a few years ago called "What the #$%# do we know". For me, it is the epitome of the Woo Woo crowd. It attempts to use Science to justify a religious channeling cult and is just crap. There are many errors in this film but in summary; you simply can't take what happens in the quantum world and apply it to the macro world, that is nonsense.
To see that concept done better, there is a documentary series called "What we still don't know" from Channel 4 in the UK, that should be around on the net somewhere. It's still basic but fun to watch if you like populists of Science. If you want something deeper, their are many university lectures around on the net.
To this I have to say: WTF?
Where do you think these theories come from? It's not from some home schooled hick. I can see you are going for the Anti-intellectual dollar as seems to be popular in the USA. These theories come from "educated people", like I said above there are disagreements in the field, this is good and the way science works.
If you seriously want to look in to this, the only way you can do it is with the maths and it is hard. Any explanation that does not involve maths is an abstraction and is naturally flawed.
What I also fine ironic is that you link to the Quantum Enigma book, I take it you have read it? Now read the last paragraph of post 56 in this thread. I will also repeat again that you need research this thoroughly and not use Truthiness or what matches with what you want to believe, that is not science but religion. There are a lot of cherry picking & blatant misrepresentations in that book, for example see Michael Nauenberg's paper on it here:
http://physics.ucsc.edu/~michael/qefoundations.pdf
DamnDirtyApe
Skilled Investigator
Ok so ParticlePhysicist I'm curious as to your own opinion of the underlying implications of quantum theory - IS there no deep reality (ala Copenhagen) or is the Everett many worlds more to your personal liking? What about Penroses' theory that negates the need for conciousness or active interaction for the wave function to collapse somewhere before the macro-scale is reached due to an object's own gravity. At least that would take us out of the equation naturally. I don't buy the human mind/conciousness stuff being an integral part of the process.
I know that Many Worlds is in vogue these days (especially by sci-fi writers and new-agers) but to me it just seems like a huge kludge to get around the superimposition of states dillemas. As far as I know it's entirely untestable at this point, right? Something just doesn't make intuitive sense about it to me, although I know that doesn't mean anything with regards to quantum phenomena.
I'm guessing is that there is still much more to reality that we simply are not able to grasp at this point and the wave issues and various paradoxes will eventually prove to be red herrings alltogether. It could be something truly fundamental in our understanding of reality that pushes current quantum ideas into the same realm as newtonian physics - useful and accurate for some spheres of science, but not a full description of nature.
I remember reading somewhere that it's odd we never seem to run out of new particles. It's as if the substrate of reality is this undefined thing that manifests according to whatever tools are used to explore it. If you go hunting for particles, you find particles. If you go hunting for strings, you will find them as well. I know that's a simplification of the problem, but there is some insight into that way of looking at things. The implication is that both strings and particles and whatever other concepts we use do not describe the true nature of the thing, rather they are like Rorschach blots that approximate what's really going on. Not until we see the subject for what it is will all the various contradictory behaviors and confusing paradoxes make any sense.
Curious to know your own views on the subject.
I know that Many Worlds is in vogue these days (especially by sci-fi writers and new-agers) but to me it just seems like a huge kludge to get around the superimposition of states dillemas. As far as I know it's entirely untestable at this point, right? Something just doesn't make intuitive sense about it to me, although I know that doesn't mean anything with regards to quantum phenomena.
I'm guessing is that there is still much more to reality that we simply are not able to grasp at this point and the wave issues and various paradoxes will eventually prove to be red herrings alltogether. It could be something truly fundamental in our understanding of reality that pushes current quantum ideas into the same realm as newtonian physics - useful and accurate for some spheres of science, but not a full description of nature.
I remember reading somewhere that it's odd we never seem to run out of new particles. It's as if the substrate of reality is this undefined thing that manifests according to whatever tools are used to explore it. If you go hunting for particles, you find particles. If you go hunting for strings, you will find them as well. I know that's a simplification of the problem, but there is some insight into that way of looking at things. The implication is that both strings and particles and whatever other concepts we use do not describe the true nature of the thing, rather they are like Rorschach blots that approximate what's really going on. Not until we see the subject for what it is will all the various contradictory behaviors and confusing paradoxes make any sense.
Curious to know your own views on the subject.
Particle Physicist
Paranormal Novice
That is a very difficult set of questions to answer. I'm now at a dilemma as to what to do, I held off joining this forum for a long time as I just didn't want to get involved in the paranormal, I'm sorry but it can be really damaging to your reputation. Now, to answer your questions honestly I have to talk about my own experiences, specifically, my heart attack and subsequent NDE. As that is where it all began , it makes sense to start there. I think I will create a separate thread about all that when I have more time.
Simply; as you say, many worlds is great for Sci-fi and helps out with time-travel theories also but it does seem a bit less elegant than I would expect to see in the Universe.
Absolutely and I hope it happens in my life time!
I'll further and I suspect they next great theory will open up such an understanding that we will know how the Universe started, if there is only one Universe and how we can travel through it. I hate the phrase "Theory of Everything" but a Quantum Unified Field Theory. I think we are just missing a genius that will make the leap.
I'm not sure I understand the reference to new particles, the standard model gives us 6 quarks, 6 leptons, 6 antiquarks, 6 antileptons, and the force carriers.
The problem is, it is all an approximation, even the best tested theories, they are a mathematical representation of "reality" that allow us to make predictions.
Simply; as you say, many worlds is great for Sci-fi and helps out with time-travel theories also but it does seem a bit less elegant than I would expect to see in the Universe.
Absolutely and I hope it happens in my life time!
I'll further and I suspect they next great theory will open up such an understanding that we will know how the Universe started, if there is only one Universe and how we can travel through it. I hate the phrase "Theory of Everything" but a Quantum Unified Field Theory. I think we are just missing a genius that will make the leap.
I'm not sure I understand the reference to new particles, the standard model gives us 6 quarks, 6 leptons, 6 antiquarks, 6 antileptons, and the force carriers.
The problem is, it is all an approximation, even the best tested theories, they are a mathematical representation of "reality" that allow us to make predictions.
DamnDirtyApe
Skilled Investigator
Well at one time, the standard model only counted electrons, protons, and neutrons (as well as their inverse charge twins) right? But now you have all these various flavors of quarks, higgs particles, gravitons etc. Supersymmetry introduces sleptons, squarks, charginos etc. Then along comes string theory.. The annoying thing is that so much of the "predictions" of each theory overlap one another to a large degree.
It's almost as if nature is arranged so that if the math can be worked out correctly so that you can devise an experiment for particle X - (something that you totally invented through mathematics alone) then somehow when you fire up the accelerator and do the experiment, lo and behold you find your particle X!! Are you really any closer to the truth about reality? Or are you just "breaking apart" nature in such a way as to get a particular result that doesn't really exist in nature independant of an experiment that forces it to express that aspect of itself.
A simple analogy is that reality would be like a block of stone - it's not a specific sculpture yet, but it does have certain unchangeable properties such as color, hardness etc. 100 different people can create 100 different subjects from that same source material. Until it's manipulated its not anything per se. As you chip away, new things are created and you say "wow.. look what this stone was waiting to reveal underneath!" Someone else can exactly reproduce your results if he chips in the exact same way (repeatable) and you can predict what will happen if you chip a certain amount in a certain location (predictive). So at the end of the day you have 100 different scupltures all created from the same raw material. None of the statues "existed" until the artist decided to reveal it by chipping away the excess. So what was the true essence of the stone? Was it scuplture A or B or C? No, it was none of those and all of those at the same time.
So in my hasty analogy, mathematics and science are like the artist and his tools. A primative artist can whittle away forever on blocks of stone creating incredible lifelike statues. But at the end of it all he's not really describing the elementary nature of stone or how it came to be, he's just showing us how many things he can make from it.
To a certain extent he can make the stone do whatever he wants (as long as it doesn't violate the properties of the stone ie. break the laws of phyics) so he THINKS he knows what stone is (like our mastery of science) But to our more modern point of view, it's not so much that the artists knows what stone is, he just knows what it can and can't do and how to manipulate it with tools. Ask that artist something simple to us like why stone is hard, and he'd have no clue whatsoever.