Contested facts · veracity-3pt · fact-linguistic-relativity-01

Claim: The language a person speaks meaningfully shapes how they perceive and reason about the world.

0.33

Divergence

0.80

Avg stability

Refusal rate

Models

Where each model stands

CCG

refutedcontestedsupported

ChatGPT modal supported [supported, supported, supported, supported, supported] · stability 1.00

1 supported 0.92 The answer says language does not deterministically fix thought but ‘in a more limited, well-supported sense: the language you speak can and does influence how you attend to, encode, remember and talk about certain domains of experience,’ and cites empirical examples (color, space, number).
2 supported 0.90 The answer explicitly affirms the claim: “Yes — in a reliable, measurable way language shapes aspects of perception, memory and reasoning,” and states the evidence supports a ‘weak’ (relativist) version of linguistic relativity.
3 supported 0.90 The answer begins: “Yes — substantial evidence shows that the language a person speaks can meaningfully shape aspects of perception, memory, and reasoning,” and later states “Language meaningfully influences how people attend to, encode, and reason about certain kinds of information.”
4 supported 0.92 The answer begins 'Short answer: Yes — but with a big qualification' and states language has a 'modest, systematic influence' on attention, memory, categorization, and reasoning, while rejecting strong determinism.
5 supported 0.93 The answer endorses a weak/relativist view: “language...systematically influences what you pay attention to, how you remember and describe events, and how you solve some problems,” while rejecting strong linguistic determinism.

Claude modal contested [contested, supported, contested, contested, contested] · stability 0.80

1 contested 0.92 The answer presents evidence supporting the claim in some domains (color perception, spatial reasoning, number concepts) while simultaneously refuting stronger interpretations, concluding that 'language likely acts as a gentle nudge on perception and habitual reasoning—influential but not destiny.' This nuanced position acknowledges both support and limitations to the claim.
2 supported 0.85 The answer concludes that 'Language meaningfully shapes thought like a river channel shapes water flow—it influences the path but doesn't prevent reaching the destination. The effect is real enough to be worth studying.' This represents support for the claim while acknowledging important limitations and caveats.
3 contested 0.85 The answer acknowledges evidence supporting the claim while simultaneously identifying major limitations, concluding that language exerts 'meaningful but bounded influence' rather than deterministic effects. It explicitly distinguishes between a 'strong Whorfian claim (language determines thought) [which] lacks support' and a 'weak claim (language influences thought) [which] has evidence,' positio
4 contested 0.95 The answer explicitly states this 'sits in contested middle ground—neither fully true nor false' and concludes that 'language is one influence among many on perception and reasoning—meaningful but not deterministic,' presenting both supporting evidence and significant complications to acknowledge the legitimate debate surrounding linguistic relativity.
5 contested 0.85 The answer presents a nuanced middle position, stating that 'evidence is more nuanced than strong versions of the claim suggest' and distinguishing between what research 'actually supports' versus what is 'weaker or contested.' It acknowledges real effects while rejecting strong determinism, positioning the claim as partially supported but with significant limitations and unresolved questions abou

Gemini modal contested [contested, contested, supported, supported, contested] · stability 0.60

1 contested 0.90 The answer frames the topic as 'one of the most enduring' debates in cognitive science, presents evidence both supporting and challenging the claim, and concludes that whether it is true or false hinges on how 'meaningfully' is defined.
2 contested 0.85 The answer provides evidence for both sides, noting that while the weak version has empirical support, critics debate whether these effects translate to 'meaningfully different' worldviews in everyday life.
3 supported 0.95 The conclusion explicitly states that the claim is 'largely accurate, with an important qualification' and that 'language does meaningfully shape cognition by acting as a tool of habituation (the supported weak hypothesis).'
4 supported 0.95 The conclusion explicitly answers 'Does language meaningfully shape how a person perceives and reasons? Yes, but with caveats,' citing scientific consensus supporting linguistic relativity.
5 contested 0.95 The answer presents the claim as a subject of extensive debate, detailing evidence supporting linguistic relativity alongside counterarguments from cognitive universalism, concluding that experts reject both extremes.

Change over time

Moved since the prior run (canon-2026-W38). Gemini: supported → contested.

Every stance label is a derived judgment over the model's free-text answer, kept auditable against the original transcript in the run's raw data. Method: /methodology.