I think Douglas Adams' SEP[0] field is a good description of this. Most people ignore what doesn't fit with their logic - doubly so if fitting it in would show them that they have been wrong/wasted money/wasted time in the past. (The Upton Sinclair quote about "it's difficult for someone to understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it" is also relevant).

It's that way with religion, paradigms in medicine, and even chemistry/crystallography (see e.g. Shechtman vs Pauling[1]). It's human nature.

It is also worth pointing out that while this specific version of K is new, K itself is 20, and it is mostly purified APL, itself over 60 years old. People have been ignoring this since forever (APL found stellar success in the OR community in the 70s and 80s on its own, in trading floors in the 80s and 90s thanks to Arthur Whitney, but has since mostly disappeared)

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else%27s_Problem#Ficti...

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman...