# "The Exception that Proves the Rule"  Huh, doesn't it do the opposite?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule-huh-doesnt-it-do-the-opposite/249693>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [June 10, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule-huh-doesnt-it-do-the-opposite/249693 "2004-06-10T20:04:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule-huh-doesnt-it-do-the-opposite/249693/1 "2004-06-10T20:04:22Z")

</div>

I hear this expression quite often, and, shamefully I can admit to using it myself.

But thinking about it, the expression really doesn’t make all that much sense.

**Person A** : Every X is Y.

**Person B** : But what about Z (usually a proven exception to Person A’s statement).

**Person A** : Well, that’s just the exception that proves the rule.

**Person B** : _Nodding Head Sagely_ Yes, I guess your right.

* * *

But really, that exception doesn’t _prove_ the proposed rule now does it? In fact, it _undermines_ it. Thus this oft used statement really doesn’t make sense. Where did this saying come from, and is there a context where this saying may be true- or at least helpful?

Enlighten me, if you don’t mind.

Thanks!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule-huh-doesnt-it-do-the-opposite/249693/2 "2004-06-10T20:14:38Z")

</div>

The master speaks: [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3\_201.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html)

And speaks and speaks and speaks

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule-huh-doesnt-it-do-the-opposite/249693/3 "2004-06-10T20:22:42Z")

</div>

> [@Qadgop the Mercotan](#):
>
> The master speaks: [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3\_201.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html)
> 
> And speaks and speaks and speaks

Thank goodness! My first draft included a reference to this being a variation of the famous “Chewbacca Defense” but I thought that might be too snarky for an forum such as this.

Thanks for the link!

🆒

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule-huh-doesnt-it-do-the-opposite/249693/4 "2004-06-10T20:25:16Z")

</div>

Proves the rule as in _tests_ it.

It would akin to a sign that said, “No Parking Except on Sundays.” Therefore, all other conditions permit parking. It is an argument as a point of law, not of general logic. Cecil answered this one well in the link **Qadgop** provided.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule-huh-doesnt-it-do-the-opposite/249693/5 "2004-06-10T20:44:31Z")

</div>

My favorite column ever!