4 ms·

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

by necovek 7mo 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.

saghm 7mo ago
> 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".
- necovek 7mo ago
  That's exactly my point: the previous response assumed the argument was made in "I don't like change matter", when a better interpretation is "I am OK with Pluto being a planet if all the other similar objects matching the same definition are planets or them all not being planets", or, in this context, "I'd really like to know why was previous opinion also based on research wrong". I'd also note Pluto was discovered only in 1930, and people already accepted a change of "one extra planet" not 100 years ago, and I do not think people have changed that much since.
  - saghm 7mo ago
    > I'd also note Pluto was discovered only in 1930, and people already accepted a change of "one extra planet" not 100 years ago, and I do not think people have changed that much since. Fair enough. I think people are more tolerant of new discoveries than being told than something being "taken away" though. > That's exactly my point: the previous response assumed the argument was made in "I don't like change matter", when a better interpretation is "I am OK with Pluto being a planet if all the other similar objects matching the same definition are planets or them all not being planets", or, in this context, "I'd really like to know why was previous opinion also based on research wrong". At least in my experience, nobody I've ever heard genuinely complain about Pluto not being considered a planet anymore has expressed the sentiment you're saying though. There have been multiple adults in my life over the years who have what I can only describe as an emotional attachment to the idea of Pluto as a planet based seemingly on nothing other than nostalgia and the fact that it's what they were taught when they were in school. I'm not saying that the view you're citing here doesn't exist, but from what I can tell almost everyone who approached the change from that mindset either ended up convinced that the change was reasonable or stopped caring years ago.
    - necovek 7mo ago
      I can see what you are describing with Pluto. But I am reasonably confident that we'd not be seeing that reaction if the discovery of new planet-like lumps of rock similar in size to Pluto was described as "new planets discovered" (you seem to hint at that too): it's more of a reaction to change for the sake of change in their opinion ("let's redefine what a planet is, making Pluto not one anymore"). I think it would be comparable to us saying that something which is now ingrained is redefined (eg. think about saying "Zero/0 is not a number" anymore). Research pointing in the other direction in regards to serif vs non-serif type is not the same: it is measurable objective fact (even if riddled with methodological constraints and issues).
thaumasiotes 7mo ago
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.)
- necovek 7mo ago
  But that is not true: a very first result in a quick search shows a marked increase in reading speed with serif fonts: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-2-Comparison-of-readability-in-time-between-Serif-and-Sans-serif-fonts-of_fig1_50853367 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-2-Comparison-of-r... There are more, but OP claims to dispute this study among others, and while I am very curios and have added it to my reading list, if somebody has already read and can highlight what was wrong with all the previous studies, that'd be great (that was the ask all along). For instance, in this very study, Verdana (a sans serif font) is ranked best due to low mental effort, but an average reading speed is much better for serif fonts: I would like to see even larger x-height fonts than Georgia — eg. Baskerville — tested as well. Perhaps sans serif fonts are taken down by the worst ones. I guess I'll need to read the OP's full 160 pages to get my answer.

by necovek 7mo ago

saghm 7mo ago

> 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".

necovek 7mo ago
That's exactly my point: the previous response assumed the argument was made in "I don't like change matter", when a better interpretation is "I am OK with Pluto being a planet if all the other similar objects matching the same definition are planets or them all not being planets", or, in this context, "I'd really like to know why was previous opinion also based on research wrong". I'd also note Pluto was discovered only in 1930, and people already accepted a change of "one extra planet" not 100 years ago, and I do not think people have changed that much since.
- saghm 7mo ago
  > I'd also note Pluto was discovered only in 1930, and people already accepted a change of "one extra planet" not 100 years ago, and I do not think people have changed that much since. Fair enough. I think people are more tolerant of new discoveries than being told than something being "taken away" though. > That's exactly my point: the previous response assumed the argument was made in "I don't like change matter", when a better interpretation is "I am OK with Pluto being a planet if all the other similar objects matching the same definition are planets or them all not being planets", or, in this context, "I'd really like to know why was previous opinion also based on research wrong". At least in my experience, nobody I've ever heard genuinely complain about Pluto not being considered a planet anymore has expressed the sentiment you're saying though. There have been multiple adults in my life over the years who have what I can only describe as an emotional attachment to the idea of Pluto as a planet based seemingly on nothing other than nostalgia and the fact that it's what they were taught when they were in school. I'm not saying that the view you're citing here doesn't exist, but from what I can tell almost everyone who approached the change from that mindset either ended up convinced that the change was reasonable or stopped caring years ago.
  - necovek 7mo ago
    I can see what you are describing with Pluto. But I am reasonably confident that we'd not be seeing that reaction if the discovery of new planet-like lumps of rock similar in size to Pluto was described as "new planets discovered" (you seem to hint at that too): it's more of a reaction to change for the sake of change in their opinion ("let's redefine what a planet is, making Pluto not one anymore"). I think it would be comparable to us saying that something which is now ingrained is redefined (eg. think about saying "Zero/0 is not a number" anymore). Research pointing in the other direction in regards to serif vs non-serif type is not the same: it is measurable objective fact (even if riddled with methodological constraints and issues).

thaumasiotes 7mo ago

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.)

necovek 7mo ago
But that is not true: a very first result in a quick search shows a marked increase in reading speed with serif fonts: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-2-Comparison-of-readability-in-time-between-Serif-and-Sans-serif-fonts-of_fig1_50853367 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-2-Comparison-of-r... There are more, but OP claims to dispute this study among others, and while I am very curios and have added it to my reading list, if somebody has already read and can highlight what was wrong with all the previous studies, that'd be great (that was the ask all along). For instance, in this very study, Verdana (a sans serif font) is ranked best due to low mental effort, but an average reading speed is much better for serif fonts: I would like to see even larger x-height fonts than Georgia — eg. Baskerville — tested as well. Perhaps sans serif fonts are taken down by the worst ones. I guess I'll need to read the OP's full 160 pages to get my answer.