I was surprised to see the question in your column about the exception proving the rule because I had always assumed the saying came from the “rule” that “there’s an exception to every rule.” Thus the mere existence of an exception to a rule proves the validity of the rule. No? --V.M., Berkeley, California
Dear V.:
No. If all it takes for a rule to be valid is that it have an exception, every rule would be valid–except, of course, rules without exceptions. Obviously not an argument you want to take very far
I read V’s comment differently. My interpretation of the reply was that an exception to any rule serves to further prove THE rule that every rule has an exception. (Rather than the rule that was excepted, if anyone can follow me through that bramble) I wouldn’t argue that this is the canonical sense of the phrase, but I can see why someone could fall for it.
(A feeble attempt at clarifying: The fact that Cecil was wrong doesn’t prove the rule that Cecil is always right, but it does prove that the rule ‘Cecil is always right’ is not without exception, capsice?)
Even if this is what the V.M. meant (and I think Cecil’s interpretation is more likely), V.M. would still be wrong. This wouldn’t prove the rule any more than seing a white car "proves’ the rule that “all cars are white”.
Yes, you are right. Instead of ‘further prove’ (as I guess the verb ‘prove’ is somewhat resistent to modifiers anyway) I should have said that finding a non-conforming case to what had been assumed to be a rule serves to ‘strengthen the evidence for’ THE rule that every rule has it’s exception (unprovable as a self-negating rule must be.)
My take on this expression is somewhat similar to Fowler’s (as revealed by Adams). That is, the exception to a simplisitically or crudely stated rule can prove the underlying but less easily articulated rule.
Fowler’s example can be summarized: as a rule, Jones never compliments anybody; Jones is found to compliment a writer; the writer turns out to be himself; Jones really doesn’t every compliment anybody, since complimenting yourself is self-love rather than appreciation.
“I can never parallel park.”
“What about that time you were in that Aston Martin? You had no trouble parking then.”
“Hey, that’s the exception that proves the rule.”
“No way!.”
“Way. That car had steering on the right. I can parrallel if I’m on the same side as the kerb. In the 99.523% of North American cars that have steering on the left, I can’t parrallel park, so as a rule, I can’t parrallel park.”
The point is, nobody wants to state the rules in their long form, i.e. with exceptions included. Jones never compliments anybody other than himself. Don’t shout in the library (since it disturbs people) unless there is a fire and disturbing people is exactly what you want to do. Etc.
Anyway, that’s my take on it. What other people mean when they use this phrase is anybody’s guess.
It is worth remembering that the primary definitions of “rule” (at least in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition) are fairly loose:
“a prescribed guide for conduct of action”
“an accepted procedure, custom, or habit”
“a usually valid generalization”
“a generally prevailing quality, state or mode”
“a standard of judgement”
“a regulating principle”
Only in reference to law and governance does it take on connotations of inflexibility, universal application, etc. In those cases, yes, a single exception would disprove the validity of a rule. But in the common parlance of everyday life, where rules are made to be broken, where there’s an exception to every rule, and where, as a rule, we all navigate the world by using rules of thumb, then an exception merely throws the general principle into sharper relief, much as light creates a shadow, or as warmth becomes meaningful only if it can be compared to cold.
“The dawn of a new era is felt and not measured.” Walter Lord
Another take on the phrase, from a current GD thread about abortion:
Someone brought up the old, ‘if I wanted to go to the hospital and have them cut off my right arm, I could’ saw ;), in an abortion debate.
Me: No, they wouldn’t; they’d check you into the loony bin.
C3: Brings up ‘News of the Wierd’-style story of hospital in Scotland which has, at patients’ request, removed two healthy limbs during the past three years.
Me: That’s the exception that, by the fact that we know how exceptional it is, proves the rule still holds almost invariably.
The damned phrase had never made any sense to me either, and then I was in a position where it seemed to fit perfectly. Pretty neat, IMO.
“Love flies out the door when money comes innuendo.” - Marx
So the above dialogue was the exception that proved the rule about ‘the exception proving the rule’ being nonsense. (Since it was exceptional enough to note.)
I think the phrase has a useful meaning in scientific discovery: When one has formulated an hypothesis, the next step is to gather objective evidence that will test the hypothesis. If the preponderence of the evidence supports it, one can begin to feel more confident that the hypothesis is valid. However, if a critical exception is discovered, it may be thrown into doubt. What may happen is that upon further investigation the “exception” is actually not an exception, but another example that provides further support for the original hypothesis: The “exception” that proves the rule.
I think it’s significant in the continuing use of this phrase that the research process can be psychologically impactful: Generation of proof requires tremendous commitment to the research process. It can initially be devastating when the focus of the entire research effort is contradicted, and appears to be completely disproved, by a single example. Continuing to denote the (now valid) example as an (in historical context) “exception” serves to remind the researcher how “exceptional” and important the example was in the discovery process.
Well, first, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, osrkrw, glad to have you with us!
Second, BrotherCadfael and Exapno, you might want to read Cecil’s column, there’s a link in the OP. He notes that “test” theory and pretty much rejects it as not the sense in which the phrase is ever used.
The problem is that the sense it is used is a misunderstanding of the original sense, which makes it nonsense. It is also borrowed into Swedish where the word prova/pröva does indeed mean test.
C K, my reading of the column is that Cecil is forced to back off some from his rebuttal.
The OED confirms the legal theory:
First cite 1617.
The cites for the more commonly used phrase are not much help.
A good Yes and No answer is found at the World Wide Words site. This gives a much better explanation for the nuances of the usage, which Cecil frankly blew.
