@believer258: it's not ludicrous to suggest that if 48 had always been the standard, this wouldn't be an issue. it IS ludicrous to base an entire argument around such an assumption.
i think 24 is a sweet spot for FILM because it strikes a balance between providing fluid continuity between frames and sufficient leftover space in order to let our minds do some of the work. films ARE an interactive medium because we are piecing these pictures together as they are shown to us. without our input, they're nothing. more frames actually equates to less creativity on our behalf in piecing together the visual narrative.
At the risk of sounding dismissive, is this argument based on verifiable information, or is just something you (or someone else) made up to "explain" why 24 fps is better?
Edit: As an example, someone else mentioned "persistence of vision" which according to Wikipedia is a myth debunked a century ago.