> 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.
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).
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.