There have been discussions both in class and on the blogs about certain hypocritical statements, such as "Nothing can be objective", or "it is always wrong to judge others". The hypocrisy of a radical constructivist trying to convince others that their theory is right has been pointed out. While I think these contradictions are worth discussing, I don't think they detract from the actual argument. For example, Ernst Von Glasersfeld may argue that his theory of radical constructivism is true, but if part of the theory is that one cannot know anything outside of his or her experiences, then of course he should be willing to admit that the theory of radical constructivism is based on his experiences. I don't think this is hypocritical of him. Even if it was, I think it is a weak argument to say "this person doesn't always act in accordance to their beliefs; therefore, their beliefs are wrong". By focusing on these possible contradictions, we are skirting around the actual belief we should be evaluating. In other words, I don't think you should judge the merit of an argument by focusing on the person making the argument.