This commentary is a response to those of Hall (2016) and Winebrenner (2016), which in turn were responses to the article the authors wrote on modality preferences and learning styles (Lodge, Hansen, & Cottrell, 2016). There are several key points the authors wish to address in this reply. Most importantly, and aligned with the aims and focus of "Learning: Research and Practice," the authors would like to take the opportunity to discuss why learning styles provide a key example of what happens when the link between research and practice is corroded. [For the original article on modality preferences and learning styles written by the authors, "Modality Preference and Learning Style Theories: Rethinking the Role of Sensory Modality in Learning," see EJ1186493. For the Hall article, "The Tenacity of Learning Styles: A Response to Lodge, Hansen, and Cottrell," see EJ1186525. For the Winebrenner article, "Teaching Students about Their Own Modality Strengths Can Lead to Positive Learning Outcomes," see EJ1186465.]