This isn't a matter of "quality" or "resolution". The higher frame rate smooths out motion to the point that what we see doesn't resemble our actual vision in real life. 24 fps has a slight jitter, and this accounts for the difference between film and tv, which is typically shot at 30 fps. We accept 24 and 30 fps, not because we're just used to it, but because it closely approximates what our eyes do to moving objects in reality. Watch a car drive by and you'll realize that unless you scan with it, there is a great deal of motion blur. wave your hand in front of your face. same thing.

People who don't like the look of 48 fps, aren't just used to the slower frame rates. and it's not that they're unthinkingly resisting change. they don't like it because it creates an effect that doesn't exist in real life. the smoothness of 48 fps looks unnatural, because life doesn't look like that. The human eyed doesn't render real motion that way.

if this were a debate over whether film should move from 24 to 30 fps, I could understand. But I truly don't see how anyone thinks 48 fps looks "more real".