Given these considerations, all that remain of his skepticism and relativism is fraternity-row sophistry, which most of us encounter and get over in our careless youth. The uncompromising deconstructionist, by insisting that no belief, or mode of justifying belief, is in any demonstrable sense better than another, quite simply has nothing further to say. Solipsism, plain and simple. A willingness to engage in civil and rational discussion may suffice to save the poor deconstructionist from the error of his ways. But this is conceded by any and all responsible scientists and scholars, indeed it is one of their first principles.
Subjectivism is the beginning problem.
Radical relativism can be easily refuted by any moderately competent Philosophy major. It's just like pulling dandelions. However, the history of ideas discloses that, like dandelions, relativism pops right back up again. I submit that it should. Quite the contrary.