[truthexposer]

the weak form isn't debunked, but the hypothesis as a whole is debunked to a degree of being common sense, of course psychology, sociology, and anthropology may argue for stronger forms to advance their own theories, but most theories from any discipline that studies this sort of thing would agree that the influence cognition and language have on each other is not one-directional, nor are the influences very direct, and the influence that they do display on each other may be caused by some other phenomenon.

tell the eskimo seeing X different kinds of snow to any linguist and they will roll their eyes, debating whether or not to explain why the example is probably not only incorrect, but fabricated for the umpteenth time.

[yourapostasy]

Thank you for the concise explanation. I'm curious about the weak form because our own field's "Blub Paradox" seems to loosely allude to the weak form (though there are arguments against drawing such an analogy [1]). If even the weak form in limited contexts is discredited, then that is one less possible explanation for the Blub Paradox (and alas, one less possible set of remedies to correct the paradox). I suspect that the weak form is a poorly-understood expression of a cognitive mechanism (perhaps with application to AGI?) we don't clearly grasp yet; some irony there.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=61157