That makes global claims of this sort (claims about our language defining our world) untestable even in principle. It’s not a scientific hypothesis; it’s a rather strange (and in my view implausible) metaphysical claim that no one can ever confirm or refute. That is part of why linguists are so much less intrigued by global Sapir–Whorf-style claims

Claims about the grammar of a language can be wrong in three different ways: (i) because the language has changed, (ii) because prejudice has clouded perceptions of what the facts are, or (iii) because of analytical blunders that obscure the description of the facts.