In http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html, “the exception that proves the rule” is interpreted as either applying to civil law, in which exceptions imply a rule, or to those cases which only appear to be exceptions. I propose a different interpretation.
Outside the fields of law, logic and hard science, it is possible to distinguish between an absolute rule – one that always holds – and a general rule – one that usually holds.
In the latter case, the fact that exceptions stand out as exceptions implies that a rule applies in most or all other cases that have been observed. Otherwise, the ‘exception’ would not be noticed as being unusual.
Thus, while an exception disproves any absolute rule that does not include it, it can reinforce the validity of a general rule.
That’s kind of what Cecil was saying–stating a specific exception within the context of the rule enforces the fact that the rule is in place in all other situations, i.e., “No swimming except on Sundays.”
As an aside I always felt Cecil caved too quickly on this one. Although there is a legitimate interpretation of the saying, as Cecil notes, every time I’ve actually heard this phrase in real life it’s been in the fallacious sense he originally denounced.
When I was learning Spanish I seized upon “probar” as the explanation for the apparently contradictory “exception that proves the rule,” since “probar,” which looks like “prove” actually means “tests.” I was disappointed, however, by my Peruvian students who said in effect that "our version is just as contradictory: we say “la excepción que confirma la regla,” which translates directly into the rule in English.
Resurrecting zombie threads isn’t allowed, except in Cafe Society, and even then, only if there is new substantive content that needs the previous thread entries to make any sense.
Thus, once again, demonstrating the exception that proves the rule.
I always thought that expression was used when someone brought up an especially outlandish or ad hoc counter-example. It’s kind of like when in a Platonic dialogue, Socrates accuses someone of making a “debaters argument.” I.e. if you have to go to such logical extremes to come up with a counter example, it seems like the general rule’s a pretty good one.
I DESPISE this proverb because it is so often and so easily used by morons to wave away something that shoots down their idiotic generalization. So I am surprised to find myself somewhat defending the validity of this saying in a certain context.
Imagine if I were to say to you that black women in America have very little power in the upper ecehlons of government. Now, you would probably immediately answer “Condi Rice”. But the fact that she springs immediately to all our minds tends to prove that all of us have at some point said or thought, “Wow, there is a black woman who has become very powerful in America. What an interesting change.”
Now, if I were to similarly generalize that male methodists wield relatively little power in upper echeolons of the US government, most of us would NOT have a name on the tip of the tongue to refute that generalization.
I recommend we all do a search for the phenomenon of “nutpicking” that was discussed on SDMB recently, because that phenomenon and that rule of debate has a lot to do with this proverb.
Fifty years ago my high school math teacher told us that this saying simply meant that if you wanted to test a theorom, you should not pick a common case. but rather an exceptional one. For example, if you want to prove that the interior angles of a trangle equal 180 degrees, do not pick an equalateral triangle, pick a weird looking triangle with unequal sides and angles. If you can prove it for a “generic” triangle, it will be valid for all triangles, because the exception proves the rule.
It would in the sense that since an equilateral triange is a very regular triangle with equal sides and equal angles, it may have properties that other triangles do not. (In fact, it does.) Therefore, if you want to prove a rule is true about all triangles, you should pick one that is “weird”, that is an exception to the usual run of special triangles often selected for study: equilateral triangles, right triangles, etc. In other words, what is true for equilateral triangles may not be true for all triangles, but what is true for exceptional (ie. weird) triangles is.
Yeah, and he blew the whole thing by perpetuating the meaningless bastardization, “the proof is in the pudding”. There is nothing in the pudding; however, in his 1615 novel Don Quixote, Miguel Cervantes observed, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
The English word “prove” used to mean “test,” which is the current meaning of the cognate German word prüfen. Adages and sayings become set phrases and often contain archaic words and meanings.
Hence: “The exception that proves the rule” means in current usage “the exception that tests the rule.”
You cannot argue the meaning of the proverb, which hinges upon the medeival meaning of the word “proof” in English, by referencing a Spanish language author. Unless, of course, you wish to also contest the “true” meaning of the Bible by referencing the various English language translations.
My argument does not hinge on the medieval meaning of the word “proof”. My argument hinges on pudding, and the eating thereof. There is nothing in the pudding; no proof, prüfen or prueba.
