b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 7057276 (Thread)

# 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"?
(I helped save b3ta! AutoPrawn is glad we're living in the future now, 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.
(I helped save b3ta! The Alchemist king of the needlessly complicated, 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.
(I helped save b3ta! 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?
(I helped save b3ta! AutoPrawn is glad we're living in the future now, 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
(I helped save b3ta! AutoPrawn is glad we're living in the future now, 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".
(I helped save b3ta! oldpeopleinthecemetery, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:09, archived)
# Logic rules hurt my brain
(I helped save b3ta! AutoPrawn is glad we're living in the future now, 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?
(I helped save b3ta! AutoPrawn is glad we're living in the future now, 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
(I helped save b3ta! oldpeopleinthecemetery, Thu 5 Apr 2007, 15:14, archived)
# That makes sense
thanks
(I helped save b3ta! AutoPrawn is glad we're living in the future now, 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)