You miss the point that strongly typed languages help the programmer to catch some errors at compiletime instead of runtime and therefore reducing the cost of runtime-debugging. The sooner you find errors the better. cu,
I never said I didn't understand the benefits of a strongly typed language -- simply that it's over-rated in a scripting language.
First let me start off explaining the way I work with scripts -- I generally use runtime *as* compile-time. I love being able to reload scripts at runtime, and use that as valuable debugging time to make sure that everything's positioned correctly, or flowing in the right way, etc. I mention this not because it's super relative to the debate, but simply because it's how I use scripting, and therefore the difference between compile time and runtime is much smaller -- although it doesn't argue for/against strong/weak/dynamic typing, it does impact the way I work.
Perhaps it's because, like _dave alluded to, I find unit tests a much more important part of checking my code than strong-typing ever will be in those languages. I'd much rather catch those errors in a domain semantic way -- a way that has much more meaning to you as a programmer -- rather than a very elementary compiler semantic one.
But that's just been my experience.