the saying “the exception that proves the rule”.
In: 15
“You can’t have any cookies until after dinner” means “cookies are allowed after dinner”. The rule has been described by its exceptions.
At the base, it’s a way to describe a rule by using the contrapositive wording of it.
Some uses of the phrase make it to be about “if there is an exception, then the rest of time the rule must be true” but this is just a form of wishful thinking and logical fallacy, primarily in the form of confirmation bias.
[deleted]
There is actually a lot of debate on this, with different interpretations.
One common interpretation is that by stating an exception to a rule, then the rule is confirmed. “No parking from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM” implies the rule allows parking outside those hours. “Written permission from parent is required to drive after 8:00 PM” implies a rule exists prohibiting minors from driving after 8:00 PM.
Another interpretation uses “prove” as “test” (like a mathmatical proof or 180 proof alcohol). “All Scots wear kilts” is proven (tested) to be incorrect as soon as one does not. The exception proves the rule…to be incorrect.
The contemporary meaning of “proves” was “tests”.
So, “It’s the exception that tests the rule”.
i.e., a rule is only as true and accurate as its exceptions.
A rule that has no exceptions is a very good rule indeed.
if you have to give an exception, then it means the opposite of that thing you just said must exist, even if it isn’t clearly stated or written down anywhere. If all I say “fridays are casual dress code” then you assume that M-Th are NOT casual dress code because I’ve stated the exception to this rule… that I never actually told you the rule for.
My understanding was more of a pedestrian usage of the phrase. That it was a bit of a pessimistic view of the complexity of rules in practice as opposed to in theory.
That no good rule can exist without some form of exception created for some unexpected situation. Thus, when you hear a rule, it is not until you hear of the inevitable exception, or two, that the rule is truly legitimate.
If the only (or one of the only) exceptions to a rule is so extreme that it is obvious, that clarifies the rule more–not less.
“You have to be in bed by 10 Suzy, no exceptions.”
“Well what about that time last year?”
“Because the house was on fire, kiddo. Fine–That was the exception that proves the rule. You have permission to get up if the drapes are burning. Now go to bed.”
It should be stated as “the exception that tests the rule”.
Rules have predictive power.
For example, the rule is “all pigeons are grey”. You look at a flock of pigeons and notice a white bird. You investigate and find out that the white bird is not a pigeon after all. Your rule correctly predicted the future, therefore it is a good rule.
Exceptions to a general rule test the rule with more scrutiny.
In science, a “rule” and a “law” has different meanings :
A law is always verified (e.g. Ohm’s law)
A rule is something that work 99% of the time so we use it as a shortcut BUT you know it’s a rule so you have to be careful because you have exceptions (e.g. Hund’s Rule).
So “the exception that proves the rule” because otherwise it’s a law.
You say – “X is true”
Someone counters – “Nope, here’s an extreme example where it isn’t”
You say – “The fact that you had to go to such lengths to find a counterexample shows that X is generally true”
Therefore the exception proved the rule.
Latest Answers