I'll leave the science out of it, this a purely ad hominem response; the fact that you think that you can boil this argument down to a fucking paragraph makes me severely doubt you.

If I'm going to go the scientific route, I should doubt, "the science" up until I can replicate and understand the experiments that lead you to this belief. Unfortunately I'm a lazy, overworked developer who has about zero chance of actually doing that. So I'm going to have to settle for picking a side in the culture war. Religious authoritarians or anti-establishment philosophers. I know which side I'm on.

Please god, don't boil me alive.

You'll have to ask my boss, that is normally what he does.

I initially had the same reaction that the guy was getting pedantic about a term like "Retina display" which is obvious marketing bullshit.

But as I read the rest of the summary (not the article, mind you) I realized that he was picking apart the claim that Jobs made that the screen resolution is higher than that of the retina. Which I think is fair game to critique.

Unfortunately I don't have a link handy that will help me use English correctly.

Here is a great resource on these issues and might help you use some of the language you are using correctly:
http://www.pphsg.org/cdsmith/types.html

I understand that static versus dynamic is a fairly binary valued property, but my understanding is that strength of type systems is real valued.
There are 2 axes to strength:
1. If you have a type system (you outlaw certain programs), how well is it enforced? Are there ways to get around it? (Yes/No)
2. How many and what type of behaviors do you outlaw in programs. On this axis a lot of trade offs can be made. Do you allow automatic coercion? Do you allow generic data types to be expressed? If so, are covariant and contravariant type parameters allowed? etc... (Subjective 0.0 - 1.0)

Shouldn't the headline have a question mark at the end?