A bit of background, I am doing research in atmospheric physics and detection systems
Recently, I received a paper submission back with revisions suggested by a couple of reviewers. For the most part, the revisions were definitely constructive, justified and most importantly, helpful.
That is, except on one particular crucial aspect of the paper where both reviewers made suggestions, that they labelled as critical for the paper's success. However, the suggestions were directly opposite. i.e. Both suggestions are mutually exclusive, but equally feasible.
What is an effective means to address this conflict?
I have spoken to my academic supervisor and he is not sure how to proceed either and we have double checked and both suggested paths are feasible.