Well, looks like we have some fundamental miscommunication here. I think you don’t understand what it means to “entertain a hypothesis temporarily”.
It does NOT mean that one accepts that the hypothesis IS true (even on a temporary basis), however it means that one is willing to contemplate that the hypothesis MIGHT be true, and one is willing to listen to the supporting evidence, instead of dismissing the hypothesis out-of-hand.
Using the previous example of the New Age hypothesis for the curative powers of crystals and the pyramidal shapes, I consider them totally nonsensical, idiotic and ridiculous propositions, but I stay OPEN to the possibility, that I am mistaken, and the proponents are correct… and on that platform I am willing listen to the supporting evidence… if there is ANY. (So far there was none.)
Let me repeat my previous question: “What else do you expect me to do”? What does the “temporary acceptance of a hypothesis mean to you”?
As a matter of fact, I am quite glad that this problem came up to be talked about. I thought that you are aware what does it mean to “entertain a hypothesis provisionally”. Looks like that your interpretation of this phrase is different from mine. And I have no idea what yours might be. So I presented my understanding of this proposition, so you can either accept of discard it. I hope that you will accept it, or, if you disagree with it, give me some reason, why you discard it.
Logical contradictions cannot be accepted. However, it might be true that there is something that I considered to be a logical contradiction - due to MY poor understanding (!), and it turns out that I was mistaken, and there is a logical explanation, and what I thought to be a logical contradiction is really nothing of that kind. That is the most I can do. I don’t think we need to go there, here and now. I am willing to engage in that particular exchange of ideas, but I would prefer to finish this one first.