The claim most people have heard, that your language determines what you are able to think, is not a position any serious linguist holds, and is not one Benjamin Lee Whorf stated in that form. It survives because it is a good story, and because the single most repeated piece of evidence for it was never true.
The Eskimo snow vocabulary is a fabrication with a traceable history. Laura Martin followed the chain in 1986 and Geoffrey Pullum popularised her finding in 1991: a modest observation in Boas about a handful of roots was inflated by each retelling until it reached the dozens, then the hundreds. English does much the same thing with snow, and nobody concludes anything from it.
What remains after that is smaller, better evidenced, and more interesting. Not language determines thought, but language reliably shifts performance on particular tasks, by measurable amounts. The question worth asking is where it does so, and by how much.
Russian obliges its speakers to choose between голубой and синий where English says blue. Winawer and colleagues showed in 2007 that this speeds discrimination across that boundary, and that the advantage vanishes under verbal interference.
Two blues, the Russian note ⟶