Just as Newton's laws hold true in the majority of cases on this planet, but not in the whole of the universe as in Einstein, Sapir and Whorf's contention holds true for most cases, but not in every case. It is merely a description that is primarily mechanical in nature, thus the criticism of Sapir-Whorf as potential determinism, especially in its "strong" formulation.
So, as we definitely think to ourselves with an internal dialogue that manifests in how we communicate, and since our thought, and thus our behavior and hence our culture, is widely modeled after our interactions with language, there is much to be learned from the perspective of Sapir-Whorf.
But, none of this is to discount Chomsky completely by any means as Chomsky's thought is concerned with linguistic origins that are, for lack of a better word, archetypal. Chomsky in this sense is like the meditative Jung to Sapir-Whorf's bulwarking Freud. For in Chomsky we see an analysis that incontrovertibly points to the inherent similarites between all languages. Chomsky's generative grammar, while far from being fully ironed out itself, is thus held as a more all-inclusive theory.
In essence, the two really don't contradict each other as much as one may first think, but instead represent different aspects of conceptualization and "levels" of perceptive consciousness itself. And in each linguistic theory, in Sapir-Whorf and in Chomsky, there is a great deal of indebtedness to Wittgenstein.
So neither are wholly incorrect and meaningless, but neither are entirely true in every single aspect either. Fundamental leanings from nature versus nurture are evident in each persective. And in each there is data to be gleaned as well as a good deal of information to be sloughed off as extraneous.
In Charles Creegan's Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein's
influences are enumerated as Leo Tolstoy, Saint Augustine, Fyodor Dostoevsky and, most notably, Søren Kierkegaard, whom Wittgenstein referred to as "a saint". I just read that at wikipedia tonight. No wonder I've remarked before that Wittgenstein is the last extremely important philosopher.