I.

Introduction
A. Topic: Given access to the same facts, how is it possible that there can be disagreement
between experts in a discipline? Develop your answer with reference to two areas of
knowledge.
B. There are three things that could lead to disagreement between experts: either the facts
are not truly the same, the perception of the facts are not the same, or the expert is
making a consciously biased conclusion.
C. The first two can occur with any Way of Knowing, but Language provides a clear
example. The latter issue deals with Emotion as a Way of Knowing, as this is a common
source of bias.

II. Body
A. KQ 1: Does language change facts?
1. WOK: Language, AOK: Human Sciences
2. Explanation: Two experts may have access to the same facts, but when translation is
involved, a third party is necessitated. The translation will invariably change some of
the subtext. It may be limited by the translators knowledge of the language. This
would change the facts from truly being the same.
3. Argument: translation is inherently imperfect and when a fact is translated, it changes
and is no longer the same fact
a) Edward Sapir: because of the differences in the grammatical systems of
languages no two languages were similar enough to allow for perfect crosstranslation.
4. Counter-claim: the issue is not translation, but culture.
a) Sapir also noted that "possession of a common language is still and will continue
to be a smoother of the way to a mutual understanding between England and
America, but it is very clear that other factors, some of them rapidly cumulative,
are working powerfully to counteract this leveling influence. A common language
cannot indefinitely set the seal on a common culture when the geographical,
physical, and economics determinants of the culture are no longer the same
throughout the area.
5. Conclusion: While it is impossible to translate something perfectly, there are
boundaries that will always be present, independent of language. Since even within a
single language, there are still other factors that will impede understanding, the

changing of facts by translation is not, largely, at fault. Rather, it may be our

perception of facts that are changed by languages.
B. KQ 2: Does language affect our perception of fact?
1. WOK: Language; AOK: Human Sciences
2. Explanation/Example: principle of linguistic relativity
3. Argument: the structure of the language we speak affects our world view directly, and
thus affects our perception of what is and is not fact.
a) Example: Benjamin Lee Whorfs research on time expression in Hopi and English
b) He argued that in contrast to English and other Standard Average European
(SAE) languages, Hopi does not treat the flow of time as a sequence of distinct,
countable instances, like "three days" or "five years," but rather as a single
process and that consequently it has no nouns referring to units of time as SAE
speakers understand them.
c) He proposed that this view of time was fundamental to Hopi culture and
explained certain Hopi behavioral patterns.
4. Counter-claim: language is merely an expression of culture, and it is differences in
cultural backgrounds that impact our perception of fact
a) Malotki (1983) later claimed that he had found no evidence of Whorf's claims in
1980's era speakers, nor in historical documents dating back to the arrival of
Europeans. Malotki used evidence from archaeological data, calendars, historical
documents, modern speech and concluded that there was no evidence that Hopi
conceptualize time in the way Whorf suggested.
5. conclusion: even if culture is a factor, their is significant evidence to conclude that, to
some extent, the structure of language does directly affect our cognition, and
therefore affects our perception of fact.
a) Universalist scholars such as Pinker often see Malotki's study as a final refutation
of Whorf's claim about Hopi, whereas relativist scholars such as Lucy and Penny
Lee criticized Malotki's study for mischaracterizing Whorf's claims and for forcing
Hopi grammar into a model of analysis that doesn't fit the data.
6. However, if the perception of the facts is the same, what else may be influencing this
disagreement?
C. KQ 3: How does emotion affect the conclusions we draw, given the same facts?
1. WOK: Emotion; AOK: Natural Sciences

2. Argument: Emotion creates bias, meaning we are more likely to reach one of two
supported conclusions, or even ignore facts altogether.
a) Example: climate science
(1) There is no survey or study showing consensus on the most important
scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary
(2) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, created to find and
disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is in turns
praised and alleged corrupt.
(3) Biases may include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and
confirmation bias
(4) Probably the only consensus among climate scientists is that human activities
can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local affects
could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal.
(5) The key question disagreed on, however, is whether the human global signal
is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to
become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability?
b) The question simply asks given access to the same facts, not necessarily that
the same facts are being used. It is quite common, when dealing with statistics,
to chose only those parameters which produce a desirable result.
(1) Example: Presidential debates, 2011
(2) Obama: In the last 30 months, we created 5 million jobs.
(a) However, in the last 42 months, since the beginning of his term, there was
a net increase of 125,000 jobs.
(3) Romney: If president, Ill create 12 million new jobs.
(a) However, this is the exact same figure that economic forecasters
expected, given a stable economy.
(4) Both used statistics to prove their case, biased by their desire to sound as
attractive as possible.
3. Counter-claim
4. Conclusion
III. Conclusion
A. Importance of thesis and KQs - We are as susceptible to bias as experts. We must
understand how and why experts disagree before we can make informed decisions.

B. alternate perspective to thesis: some opponents of linguistic relativity, as a concept,

would argue that bias is the sole issue. However, this is an unreasonably cynical view,
and asserts all blame on emotion, rather than the other ways of knowing. Just as
language can create differences in perception, so can faith, sense perception, reason,
imagination, intuition, and memory.
C. review thesis and main points and sum up the argument