I enjoyed this article, but the dispute feels a bit contrived. It seems obvious that: 1. Language shapes perception. 2. Biology shapes perception. 3. Externa

I enjoyed this article, but the dispute feels a bit contrived. It seems obvious that: 1. Language shapes perception. 2. Biology shapes perception. 3. External reality shapes language. 4. External reality shapes perception. I'm sure the precise form and extent of each of those "shapes" varies, and I can see why there might be a lot of dispute about those details. But while I can imagine some people wanting to strengthen some of those "shapes" to "determines", I don't see how anyone can reasonably deny any of those statements. (Yes, I think positions like "There is no, objective, external reality" are unreasonable.) And so yeah, I learned a good bit from this article. And empirical study of words for colours is fascinating and should definitely be pursued. And I wouldn't have guessed that the range of basic colours is so wide. But I found precisely none of the results reported in that article surprising or worldview-shaking.