Agree on all accounts except on: "I wouldn't call the article 'unreasonable' for valuing science over fallible human reason. " Because I don't think this arti

Agree on all accounts except on: "I wouldn't call the article 'unreasonable' for valuing science over fallible human reason. " Because I don't think this article values science. If it did, then it would simply state: "Here we have 2 keyboards which one is better?" Defining better as either: a) Fastest to type in for a user with IDK a 2 year experience in it. b) Easiest to learn, from scratch. c) Easiest to retrain for a person that already dominates the other keyboard. d) Healthiest over a period of 10 years (RSI anyone). Instead of doing an experiment or honestly revising the studies mentioned. This article spends most of its time, attacking the Dvorak history or "hoax" as the author calls it in the end. So this study is neither truly scientific nor truly logical. Is simply the author trying to support his preconceived notions: "Dvorak is a hoax". And using "ad hominem" attacks or self selecting studies to support his conclusions. as I mentioned before for real science on keyboards check: http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/ http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/ And thank very much for your comment, it is nice to see succinct well thought argument on the internet.