Comment by necovek
16 hours ago
On both cases it is based on some evidence even if they are completely different (one is a question of definition, another of measurement and observation): for Pluto, it is a round lump of rock going around the Sun on it's own separate orbit; for serif vs non-serif, argument is that serifs help with line tracking for eyes depending on the line spacing and line length.
For a meta-study finding a different result, it'd be great to qualify how was the previous research wrong so we learn something from it.
I've marked as something to pick up as I am very curious.
The previous theory was wrong because someone made it up on the basis of nothing. This is a very common event.
It is precisely analogous to the "dispute" over Pluto,¹ where the only argument was "I was taught in school that Pluto is a planet, which means it is true that Pluto is a planet". That is also the only argument for differential readability of serif vs non-serif fonts. It shouldn't surprise you that it turned out to be wrong.
¹ (The conclusions are not analogous - "Pluto is a planet" is not capable of being true or false when the definition of "planet" is up for debate. "Serifed fonts are more readable [under condition X]" is capable of being true or false. But the arguments are identical.)
> For Pluto, it is a round lump of rock going around the Sun on it's own separate orbit
That was never the reason anyone got upset at it being "demoted", or else they'd be equally upset about all of the other ones that were never planets in the first place (which in fact are in fact the main argument for why it got reclassified). People just don't like change, especially for things that seem like "facts".