Link:
I thought of a personal scenario related to this saying: My punctuality. I get a reputation at my jobs for being “on time, every day”. The one day that, for whatever reason, I oversleep and end up being late to work typically serves to emphasize the fact that, as a rule, I’m punctual.
Not sure I agree, sir. By being late that one day, I’d say you’re weakening that rule just a bit, not strengthening it. You may be highlighting your impeccable endurance up to that point, but you’re not strengthening your rule.
Here’s the example I always use: there’s a corner store in my neighborhood with sign out front reading “OPEN 24 HOURS, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.” I nudge my buddy as we drive by. “Are they open on Thanksgiving?”
“Well, I think so,” he says. “That would be the rule, but I suppose they could have an exception or two. Can’t tell for sure from that sign. I’ll point that out to Apu the next time we’re golfing.”
The next week, I notice the corner store has a new sign: “OPEN 24 HOURS, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK,” with a subscript reading “Closed on Christmas.” Now I’m confident that the corner store is open on Thanksgiving. By pointing out the exception(s), they are effectively proving that the rule applies in all other cases. If they were closed on Thanksgiving, they would have included it in the notice about being closed on Christmas. The exception proves the rule. QED.
My understanding of this was “this exception proofs the rule”; that is, it tests the rule.
Also, there is absolutely no proof in any pudding. The phrase is “the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.”
I’m not sure I see a difference between StusBlues’s version and the OP’s. The rule still is weakened by the exception: they aren’t technically open 24/7 if they exclude Christmas.
It’s obvious that the rule came from the legal sphere. However, whatever the original purpose of the expression, it has now become a way of insisting you’re right despite countervailing evidence.
Person A: Women make lousy scientists.
You: What about Marie Curie?
Person A: Uh… She’s the exception that proves the rule!
Now Person A doesn’t have to let all those irritating little facts get in the way of his basic belief. He’s still right and you’re still wrong.
I don’t think that’s quite right, but it’s in the ballpark. Here’s a better one:
One of my employees, a Mister Rik, is notable for his promptness. I can remember every single time he’s ever been late, because in 10 years it has only happened once.
yeah, this. the only times I’ve ever heard someone say that is when they’re just refusing to concede that they’re wrong.
This expression comes up a lot in law school, in a specific situation. The class is discussing what the law should be, and someone has proposed a general rule. Someone is arguing against the rule, proposing situations where it seems inappropriate. Eventually someone thinks of a situation where the proposed rule shouldn’t apply, but that situation is completely outlandish and improbable. “That’s the exception that proves the rule,” means, “If you have to resort to something so ridiculous to find a counterexample to this rule, then it must be a pretty good rule for us to use on a day-to-day basis.”
The rule here isn’t usually a description of reality. It’s a rule for people to follow, a description of how people ought to behave. But any rule prescribing behavior will invariably fail in sufficiently weird circumstances. And it’s impossible to anticipate and specify all the weird circumstances that might arise to suspend the rule. So in crafting a rule (or law), at some point you have to throw up your hands and say, “This rule covers enough of the foreseeable situations that it ought to be law. Making the rule any more complicated to cover weird situations would make the law too long and cumbersome to be useful.”
For example: The rule is that you stop at a red light. Maybe it shouldn’t apply if the streets are empty and someone is bleeding to death in your back seat and you’re rushing them to the hospital. Maybe it shouldn’t apply if someone has painted over the light so that you can’t see it. Maybe it shouldn’t apply if the light has been hacked so that it’s continuously red in all directions. We could come up with pages and pages of situations where it’s arguably OK not to stop at a red light.
To expand on Mr. Davies’ example:
Mister Rik is always on time. Except once, when he was an hour late. And that was during the Space Alien attack, when we were under martial law, so it’s the exception that proves the rule.
Didn’t Uncle Cecil cover all this ground already?
Powers &8^]
Er, yes. You’ll notice the link to the column in my OP.
The rule is strengthened because listing that one exception effectively states that there are no other exceptions. By specifically stating the only cases where a rule does not apply, you’re communicating that it applies at all other times–there’s no more wiggle room. You KNOW that store is open on Thanksgiving and July 4. If it weren’t, they would have listed those exceptions along with Christmas.
Oh, I know; it’s just that the discussion seems to be repeating points The Master made in his column rather than introducing new ones.
Powers &8^]
I always understood “the exception that proves the rule” is that the only reason people know the exception is because it is an exception.
For example, let’s say someone says “All baseball players are greedy and play only for the money.” This would be the rule.
But the second person replies “What about player ABC who gave half of his money to charity. It was on the news.” This would be the exception.
But if the only reason you ever heard of player ABC is because he gave half his money to charity, then he is the exception that proves the rule. He has become known ONLY because he is an exception to the rule and therefore demonstrates the rule is generally true.
The key is that the exception is known because it is unusual, thereby showing that the rule is usually true.
I believe the common expression is the result of the ‘telephone game’, also known as Chinese Whispers.
There are several senses to the Latin verb ‘probare’ and one is ‘to test’. ‘Probare’ is the root, by way of the post classical ‘proba’, of the English word ‘probe’. The correct English expression should be “the exception that probes the rule”. People often repeat misheard words as in the telephone game. And the errors then metastasize to the population. So, an exception that weakens a rule makes sense while an exception that strengthens it does not.
As a trivial point I submit that the saying is actually: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” “The proof’s in the pudding” is arguably meaningless.
This (and all the other similar assertions) is wrong. That’s just not what it means. It means ‘A (candidate) exception tests the validity of the rule’ - so:
I assert that all goose eggs are white
You test the rule by presenting a candidate exception, comprising an apparently purple goose egg.
That’s it. That’s all this phrase is about - that rules are tested by apparent exceptions, now:
If I discover that you have merely painted the egg purple - the rule stands.
If it turns out that you’ve got a genuinely purple goose egg, the rule fails.
But neither of those outcomes are anything to do with the phrase under discussion - in fact, it isn’t about any kind of outcome - it’s only about the fact that rules can be challenged.
I’m glad you’re so confident, but even the Perfect Master discovered it’s not that simple. Please re-read his final response on the topic.
Powers &8^]
I haven’t seen any source for the claim that “prove” in this expression means “test.” Can you provide one?
Hmmm… Guess I’ve been wrong all this time. Argument withdrawn. Sorry.
I’m not sure what you mean here. If you mean that you want proof that this is the answer to the original question of what the idiom means, well that is the matter being discussed. If, on the other hand, you are merely asking whether the word “prove” has that meaning in English, well, yes, it does, as can be seen in any adult dictionary, and has had it since the middle ages. (The OED lists it as branch II.)