Flaws are a aspect worth considering when it comes to 48fps, but I think they actually lend credence to the other side of the debate. Because the clarity is so much higher with 48fps, it's actually prone to reveal production flaws. Prosthetics and set design, for example, are much more transparently constructed at 48fps than they would be at 24fps. That's why the location shots and CG in The Hobbit are so spectacular—the high frame rate allows you to take in an overwhelming amount of detail. But that can be a liability in traditional filmmaking.

No doubt filmmakers will be able to compensate, but that will require more time, more effort, and more money. Which is part of why 48fps is unlikely to take off, save for certain kinds of projects. It's simply too expensive to shoot that way, particularly if you're making a movie that requires a great deal of artifice. Expect high-end nature documentaries to embrace it, much the same way that they've embraced IMAX. But I wouldn't expect many more movies like The Hobbit to go the 48FPS route.

By the way, there ARE people who like unscratched vinyl...