I sympathize with your idea of amplification of random differences, but will try to persuade you that "strong Sapir-Whorf", even if false per se, might still contain a grain of merit.

Any language co-evolves with its culture - a sort of definite integral over their historical path up to now. The English language is not wholly determined by its grammar and vocabulary: if you randomly generate many grammatical and meaningful phrases in English, a lot of them will still sound "wrong" because they don't correspond to multi-word frequency patterns of everyday English use. As a culture evolves, those multi-word frequencies change to reflect reality. That's why I find it hard to talk about programming in Russian: I'm missing not just the technical terms, but also the grown connective tissue of commonplace word combinations specialized for programming that would make phrases sound natural and easy.

When you study many languages, like me, you find that every language has its own sweet spots. The experience of reading Pushkin in Russian seems to have no analogies in the whole English language and has resisted all attempts at translation. French postmodernist thought sounds great in French but (as a rule) turns to lousy and phony wordplay in other languages. And you never really get the point of Italian until you try singing in it, suddenly feeling the sounds come more naturally than in your language of birth, whatever it is.

Personally, I find the suggestion that English philosophy is more reasonable than continental... to contain more than a grain of truth. The reason for that may well be a complex interplay between geographical location, anthropology, history, art and feeding it all back into the language; pretty hard to disentangle, but the result is, like some "racist and bigoted" conclusions, quite obvious to see once you start looking.