In particular I was going to argue for Math, that by definition (using a definition of both language and Math) we can draw certain connections and basically define Math as a language itself (By simply saying Math follows rules and agreements that were made by humans i.e. the notation 2+2=4 only works because we accept the meaning of the symbols 2 and 4 so if 3 would be defined as 2 then 3+3=4 would be a true statement as well --> as long as we agree in the definition of the symbols). Comming back to the knowledge issues I could probably link the problem of authority into here because of the agreement we are making about the meaning of the symbols and we simple accept the notation taught to us by our authority --> mainly teachers. For History I was planning on arguing along toktonys line (yeah I have read a couple that language is more influential in history then in (i.e.) maths. But it is still vital for history as it is the only way of preserve the knowledge about the past. The only two ways of passing knowledge on (well thats what history is all about) is by telling or by writing it down: for both language is needed. Again We can argue about empiricism and authority and defenetly about skepticism. In natural sciences I was planning of counter arguing for the first time that language is absolutely necessary. Because for example in chemistry language is not needed to experience the outcome of an experiment. Of course we can always argue that we need the language to preserve the knowledge of the experiment but the experiment itself we experience with our senses. So the main way of knowing is not language. So overall my conclusion would be that language plays in maths and history different roles (maths being a language and history depending on language) but to the same level of importance (both couldnt exist without). But in natural sciences even though language is needed it could exist without it and therefore language is important but not to the same degree.