Q&A 3, Answer

My question is: If a person provides conflicting behavioural and linguistic evidence, as in Lynch’s ‘Mary’ example, which evidence is more compelling?

'Actions speak louder than words.'  A lot of people use this saying, but I wonder how many mean it.  It is certainly true some of the time; for example, most people agree that in most if, for example, a child claims not to have eaten a cookie but is covered in crumbs, they are probably lying.  Similarly, although more seriously, if a person is in a relationship with a partner who regularly abuses them and then apologises afterwards but makes no effort to change, they should pay attention to their partner's actions more than their words and leave or get help.

Are there not other situations, though, when people give more weight to words than to actions?  I think so.  If a person is experiencing muscle spasms and breaks a vase, then says that they didn't and don't intend to break anything even as they smash another piece of pottery, one can probably trust their words - especially if one knew previously about their condition, or if they explain during the episode.  In fact, if a person can give a good reason for acting a certain way, I think many people will heed the explanation more than the action.  Some actions are seemingly meaningless without explanations.

As such, I think that neither Lynch nor Carruthers makes a convincing general case with the 'Mary' example.  In order to determine whether one should believe Mary's actions or her words, one would have to know more background information; therefore, that particular example does not serve well to prove a point in either philosopher's favour.