I am a little confused as to how reviewers have such contradicting perspectives on the same paper that was submitted. Lately, this has happened to me, and I have seen it happen before, and it just confuses me. Perhaps it has something to do with "deterministic screens", in which people see ideas/concepts/papers through their "own" screen. However, being a scientist, objectivity should be apparent. If you have faced a similar issue in the past, feel free to comment, or if you have an idea of why that is the case, also feel free to comment.
I just think its weird that sometimes you get two reviews, the first states "Wow, this is the best thing since sliced bread", and the other says "Wow, this is most pathetic piece of work I have ever seen!". The political world of academia never stops!