Well, duck typing can still be statically checked, so I'd argue that dynamic typing is more misguided. That said, I do agree that duck typing is fundamentally flawed. I think swans actually don't quack, they honk, but so does a car. Here we can see a problem with both synonymous and homonymous verbs.

I think it comes down to namespacing: we use modules to prevent naming conflicts, allowing us to compose two modules, but if we do the same with objects their attributes conflict. In Haskell everything has a namespace — there are no methods, only functions — and type classes provide polymorphism without (henceforth) 'quack conflicts'.

Two terrible examples of quack conflicts from the Python standard library are '+' meaning both "add" and "append" (the latter being non-commutative), and the comparison operators '<', '<=', '>=', '>' actually meaning ⊂, ⊆, ⊇, ⊃ when dealing with sets.