I may have a problem with BMW drivers

(plankton, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:47, archived)

this is such an unfair sterotype
I once knew a bmw driver who wasn't that much of a wanker
( Griffy Savalas is abhored by vacuums, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:48, archived)

you say it as if that is an achievement
mah
(jamezp1, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:49, archived)

Just one though
The exception that proves the rule.....
( Mrs Trellis Exterminieren! Exterminieren!, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:49, archived)

I'm not sure that phrase makes sense
Surely when a scientist makes a theory, as soon as it's disproven once, the theory can no longer apply untill it has been revised
( Keyboard Weasel stoasts, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:51, archived)

It is
'prove' as in 'test'not prove as in ... erm .. 'prove', though.
( Debbilgrrrrl GOES TODAY, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:52, archived)

Ah, Falsification in practice

( NinjaBadger is stealing next door's wireless at the moment, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:52, archived)

That's "prove" in an original sense
of "test". Honest!
( oldpeopleinthecemetery, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:53, archived)

Please clarify further

( Keyboard Weasel stoasts, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:57, archived)

As plankton said v
there was an older meaning of "prove" which was "test". Certainly the German for "test" is "prufen", which was in use in an Aglicised way. The phrase was coined with this in mind, then the meaning of "prove" changed to something more definite. Dunno how that happened though.
( oldpeopleinthecemetery, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:02, archived)

Ah, you see
prove also means "to test" as in proving ground, so "the exception that proves the rule", means "the case that tests the hypothesis".
(plankton, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:56, archived)

And an exception would always prove the rule wrong
So in effect, the phrase means
"the example shows that the rule is incorrect"?
( Keyboard Weasel stoasts, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:58, archived)

er
no, it means the exception that test whether the rule is correct or not.

but.

but, that doesn't make sense. hmmm.
(The Alchemist drives a truck-boat-truck, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:01, archived)

The exception
(to the usual course of things) might sometimes prove (or provide evidence for) the rule as well. This would strengthen the rule.
( oldpeopleinthecemetery, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:05, archived)

so, what
Still not following.

Rule: BMW drivers are wankers
Exception: Man X is not a wanker and owns one.

Surely that means the rule is defeated?
( Keyboard Weasel stoasts, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:07, archived)

But surely an exception by definition
is an instance or case not conforming to the general rule.

So If you try test a rule with an exception, the rule will always fail
( Keyboard Weasel stoasts, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:05, archived)

The exception is something unusual.
So if you know something about human, you can asked whether it applies to all animals as well. "Humans are made from jellybeans. So are monkeys. Therefore monkeys (the exception) proves (tests) the rule for all animals".
( oldpeopleinthecemetery, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:09, archived)

Logic rules hurt my brain

( Keyboard Weasel stoasts, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:10, archived)

ah, I should have been clearer
"exception" also means to leave out or ignore something, so more the phrase could be "this situation where there is something missing tests the hypothesis". Or something like that.

as in the rule is "I usually eat bananas", the exception to the rule would be "I sometimes eat apples." The second statement validates the first. It doesn't prove it, or disprove it, merely adds substance to it.
(plankton, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:07, archived)

So this exception is a piece of information that has been left out so the rule can be applied?

( Keyboard Weasel stoasts, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:09, archived)

or that
this case where the situation is different demonstrates that the rule exists.

Edit - I should add that it really applies to rules where there aren't absolutes - i.e. "I always eat lard", it has to be of the type "I sometimes eat lard" or "I generally wash down lunch with a helping of fat". That way you can have a exception where I don't eat fat that demonstrates that I mostly do eat fat.

Although I don't eat lard myself.
(plankton, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:12, archived)

Exactly

( oldpeopleinthecemetery, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:14, archived)

That makes sense
thanks
( Keyboard Weasel stoasts, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:30, archived)

the problem was that
the original reply didn't match the correct usage of the term. In fact the more correct "exception that proves the rule" for "all BMW drivers are wankers" is "People who drive Rovers are terribly nice". That is, the second statement that describes those people who are different shows that the first statement is correct.

Here endeth today's discussion.
(plankton, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 16:31, archived)

nah
we just kill everyone who knows about the exception

or talks about it

even in theory.

GO SUPER SCIENTIST NINJA CABAL!
(The Alchemist drives a truck-boat-truck, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:58, archived)

Finally, something I can agree on

( Keyboard Weasel stoasts, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:00, archived)

Yeah, not all us wankers drive BMWs.

(James Cupboard hates Phones 4 U, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:49, archived)

Hah hah!

( RiffRaff wouldn't, even if he could, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:51, archived)

My dad has one you bastard :p

( NinjaBadger is stealing next door's wireless at the moment, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:49, archived)

So did my dad
before he decided to really spoil it and buy a Volvo.
(plankton, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:52, archived)

I had a volvo once
it was shit
( RiffRaff wouldn't, even if he could, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:53, archived)

I drive a 10 year old suzuki.
It's hardly ever had a problem.
( NinjaBadger is stealing next door's wireless at the moment, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 14:59, archived)

I've got a 10 year old VW
It's shit. I suspect my next car will be from the Land of the Rising Sun.
( RiffRaff wouldn't, even if he could, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:01, archived)

I had a dog once
it was shitzu
(plankton, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:00, archived)

I had a shit once
it was like gravy
( RiffRaff wouldn't, even if he could, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:02, archived)