The problem is, other people with just as many credentials as you have the opposite experience. From an outsider's perspective, two people with equal authority say opposite things, what can they possibly do except an independent study?
Also, note that there's a reason anecdotal evidence is not always reliable. E.g. the famous story about fighter pilots and the "regression to the mean" hypothesis.
In this scenario, I honestly don't think it matters whose objectively right. Software is not a clean, normalized and organized set of use cases after all, maybe static typing works for person X and doesn't for person Y because of their background, or preferences, or codebase requirements, and so on.
Maybe one day we can conclusively prove that on aggregate static-typing/{insertThingHere} is overall less buggy, but even if we did, it'll still change depending on circumstances.
On the other hand, though: have you worked with large, thoroughly tested projects in a dynamic language? Personally, I find that good tests catch 99% of the bugs that static types do, plus quite a lot of other bugs as well. Arguably, you ought to write tests anyway to find those other bugs. Since they also find your typos etc, you get to enjoy the ergonomics boost of dynamic typing almost for free.
That's my (also anecdotal) argument for doubting static types.
My working day jobs have been mostly C++, and these days C#. Periodically, I will temporarily inherit some of my younger colleagues' projects, if they move on to greener pastures in different companies, with the charter of "can you do something about the long-running issues this software has been having?" My go-to solution is to go through their typescript and add return types to their functions, and replace their anys with interfaces. After having done that, I fix the bugs that revealed, and then I'm usually done. Recently when I did that, I came across a central class/data structure, which turned out to exist in no less than 5 slightly different variants. i.e. different parts of their code adhered to 5 different assumptions about what fields would exist and be populated (but all expressed on the blank canvas of 'any').