Changes

Replying to the argument that NLP is more like mysticism or religion, he argues that NLP makes claims and posits explanations regarding learning, memory, thinking, mental illness, motivation, neurology and physiology, and so its ''domain'' is the same as that of science. NLP is offering competing theories and therapies to established scientific disciplines. By contrast, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is exclusively concerned with theology, it is entirely a religious matter and is hence entirely outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. During the 14th century when the Roman Church did stray outside its proper domain of discourse and opine on matters of astronomy and medicine -- subjects of science -- it was plainly in error. The Roman Catholic Church was not offering a legitimate Christian perspective on astronomy or medicine. What the NLP industry is doing is akin to the medieval Christian Church competing with science on matters outside of its authority.

Replying to the argument that NLP is more like mysticism or religion, he argues that NLP makes claims and posits explanations regarding learning, memory, thinking, mental illness, motivation, neurology and physiology, and so its ''domain'' is the same as that of science. NLP is offering competing theories and therapies to established scientific disciplines. By contrast, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is exclusively concerned with theology, it is entirely a religious matter and is hence entirely outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. During the 14th century when the Roman Church did stray outside its proper domain of discourse and opine on matters of astronomy and medicine -- subjects of science -- it was plainly in error. The Roman Catholic Church was not offering a legitimate Christian perspective on astronomy or medicine. What the NLP industry is doing is akin to the medieval Christian Church competing with science on matters outside of its authority.

A crucial part of the dispute (misunderstanding of which clearly lead to Flavius being banned) is whether the NPOV policy requires that each side of the dispute has an equal say in the article.  Flavius has a clear understanding of what this policy is.  It does not require, for example, that all sides of a dispute get equally represented by Wikipedia - the policy [[WP:WEIGHT]] has much to say on this.  But Flavius is bullied by a succession of editors.  For example, FT2 argues that 'An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views'.  Flavius replies that if so, equal coverage should be given to the view that the Earth is flat.  "That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat ... or that the Earth is hollow ... or that the earth was colonised by space aliens. If what you were contending were true we would find the Wikipedia Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but equal coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view".  FT2 replies "There is a lot to say about earth. There probably isn't much to say about it being round, either. Its shape is noted in passing, and gets little space regardless".  Flavius wittily retorts "That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread."  This did not endear him to such an important person.

A crucial part of the dispute (misunderstanding of which clearly lead to Flavius being banned) is whether the NPOV policy requires that each side of the dispute has an equal say in the article.  Flavius has a clear understanding of what this policy is.  It does not require, for example, that all sides of a dispute get equally represented by Wikipedia - the policy [[WP:WEIGHT]] has much to say on this.  But Flavius is bullied by a succession of editors.  For example, FT2 argues that 'An encyclopedia is a collation of multiple perspectives and views'.  Flavius replies that if so, equal coverage should be given to the view that the Earth is flat.  "That is not to say that there are not people that contend that the Earth is flat ... or that the Earth is hollow ... or that the earth was colonised by space aliens. If what you were contending were true we would find the Wikipedia Earth article giving coverage to not only every nutty idea about the earth but equal coverage to every nutty idea and the scientific view".  FT2 replies "There is a lot to say about earth. There probably isn't much to say about it being round, either. Its shape is noted in passing, and gets little space regardless".  Flavius wittily retorts "That is incorrect. The implications of the Earth being flat are profound and widespread."  This did not endear him to such an important person.