I tend to believe that it’s not true and pointing to hypocrisy is indeed a valid criticism of the idea itself, despite logically it’s not. The missing part is the unknown information. I mean the World is complicated and there are many factors that can be relevant, yet not considered.
For example if I claim that camping in a particular forest is a good and healthy hobby, we can all be oblivious to the fact that it’s full of ticks and high percentage of them are carrying Lyme disease. My reasons can be all true and logical and yet my conclusion is wrong. Camping in that forest is ill advised.
By acting according to an idea, we necessarily face these things. If I camped in that forest myself, me or my companions would be infected by Lyme disease. This way I would know better to advocate for camping there.
Sure, it’s not a guarantee, one can be knowledgeable about it without being there or just get lucky and camp without ever seeing a tick. However the fair position is to openly disclose that you did not camp in that particular forest and your advise is based on generic camping knowledge about similar forests.
Not camping in a forest you talk about is not real hypocrisy. A real hypocrite preaches for something he acted against. Like preaching for monogamy while he cheats. Or preaching for fair play while he … cheats. These cases he willfully hides whatever problem caused him to violate the idea, therefore willfully misinforms people about the problems. It is very possible that if he’d disclose the problem he encountered, the conclusion would be different. For example the game is broken and it’s impossible to complete a level without cheating with some characters. But he hides it and preaches “git gud”, while no amount of getting good let you pass the broken part.
Sure, the idea can be true even if the preacher is faulty, but it’s also possible that the idea is broken and the lies makes the impression that it works. I believe unmasking a hypocrite is a valid form of criticism, not to invalidate the person or the idea, but to force the inclusion of the problem into the debate. I mean if the guy talks about how l33t he is for beating that game that no one could and you unmask him cheating, he might admit that after hundreds of hours he couldn’t get past a particular challenge. This can be added to other reports about that particular challenge as evidence that it’s indeed broken, leading to a fix. Please note that the game being buggy doesn’t disprove the idea of “better performance helps winning games”, but it helps with that particular game.
We shouldn’t judge the hypocrite, but we must ask him: “what problem made you go against the principle?”.