ballistics, etc.

[Paul J. Mackin]

Interesting discussion, Brian. But to me it brings to mind a nagging question
I've had. The word (parabola) is used--for the most part--metaphorically. We 
don't believe that there is anything about those secret lusts driving
the planet that is _literally_ parabolic. So why
is it at least a little bit important that exact scientific meanings
be attached? 

And yet it is important. Much of the pleasure of reading the books--though
not nearly all-- comes from the recogition of various learned bodies
of knowledge we have encountered elsewhere--science, history, politics,
etc.  Yet the author is using his wide range mainly, if not solely, to
evoke the human condition--not explicate some formal truth system.

What is this demand for "truth" we seem to have? Why does having a lot of
true things in a story make it better? 

Is this something like what they say when they advertise some mediocre TV 
drama-- "based on a true story"? (On a lower level of course--ha ha.)

Anybody else wondering along these lines?

			Paul