[senekerim]

OTOH if you've reached a point where you are ready to accept both 'A' and 'not A', you need to go back and re-examine your premises/assumptions (sort of a real life example of reductio ad absurdum). Related example: accepting 'the left is delusional and corrupt' and 'the right is delusional and corrupt' leads one to re-examine the validity and usefulness of this whole left-right spectrum of political thought.

[heegemcgee]

I take the original "Hold in mind" to mean "consider, in detail", and it works better. Perhaps in line with "seek first to understand".

[ch4s3]

I'm inclined to agree with this interpretation.

[jschwartzi]

There's a difference between considering A and not A, and accepting A and not A. In formal logic, one or the other statement must be true. The point being made is that we should refrain from choosing the true statement until we've taken the time to consider both on their own merits.

[qznc]

Mixing reality and absolute statements seems like a recipe for falsehood.

Probabilities work much better. "I'm 50% certain of A and 50% of not-A", which means complete ignorance. A "80% A" means you have an opinion, but you acknowledge a 20% possiblity of being wrong. If anybody claims "100% sure of something", it is an obvious sign of idiocy.

[jschwartzi]

The purpose of ideal statements is to expose some facet of reality in isolation so that it can be understood. Where people get tripped up is in closing the loop and recognizing that the ideal is never present in isolation. It shows when they ignore details that might make their ideal less valid. They're still useful, though.

[jes]

With respect, you seem to be saying that probabilities work better than absolutes, and yet your final sentence seems to be an absolute.

[Karunamon]

I am 100% sure that anything measurable exists.

Something something Sith, something something absolutes :)

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

On the other hand, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle#Critici...

[CJKinni]

The competing positions in most arguments, especially political arguments, are not of the form 'A or Not A.' Including your own example.

[pjc50]

Your related example is not an example of A and not A!