I hear this phrase used a lot when there are exceptions to established rules or principles, or when someone is trying to establish a rule or principle.
I understand that there are exceptions to certain rules or guiding principles. However I don’t understand how an exception to a rule aids in proving that rule.
I have also seen this used in what I suspect is a bogus attempt at justifying someone’s opinion on a rule, when their rule or principle doesn’t work or it faces contradictions.
For example: Someone will mention what they believe to be a guiding principle or rule on a political issue, and when faced with a fact that contradicts their stance, they’ll say, “well that’s the exception that proves the rule”. It just seems like a lazy way to deal with contradictions.
How does the exception help prove the rule?
And how do I know the phrase is being used correctly and not abused to deviate from legitimate contradictions?
In: Other
It is based on a roman legal case about citizenship.
The general idea can be explained as if you see a sign on the gavel area beside the road with the sign “no parking on Sundays” you can conclude that parking is allowed on all other days. If the parking was not allowed on another day the sign would say no parking or nor even no sign at all.
So because there is a stated exception there has to be a rule that it is applied to.
Most of the time today it is used in completely different ways where the logic does not apply. So most of the time it is used incorrectly
A lot of people use that phrase in different ways. The original meaning was more like “The fact that an exception exists proves that a rule exists.” Like say you see a sign that says “No Parking on Thursdays.” That’s an exception, because otherwise the sign would just say “No Parking” or “No Parking Anytime.” So the rule must be “You’re allowed to park here, EXCEPT on Thursdays as an exception.” Even though there’s no rule posted, you can figure out what it is by applying everything that isn’t an exception. The existence of the exception proves the rule exists, and that you’re allowed to park there any time but Thursday.
A lot of people use it in a more joking way, like saying “I’m never late,” and when you tell them that they were late to brunch, they’ll say “Well the exception proves the rule.” It might be fair – after all, you’d only be surprised to find someone late if they aren’t usually late, as a rule, but it’s more often a funny way to brush off comments or contradictions like that. But the idea behind it, similar to that previous use, is that a general rule exists, and the existence of an exception shows what the rule itself is.
The only interpretation that makes sense relies on a rather arcane usage of the word “proves”.
There was a time that “prove” was used as basically a synonym for “test”. So “the exception that proves the rule” would mean “the exception that tests the rule”. So you could come up with a situation or example that you think would be an exception to the rule, which you would use to test it.
“Our rule is that any restaurant fancy enough for the women to be wearing high heels is a place that’s too fancy for men to be wearing blue jeans”.
“Well, what if it’s a cowboy-themed place? Is that an exception?”
We’re testing the rule here; proving it, in a very real sense.
Take for example a sign that says “No parking on Sundays”. Now, you can interpret this solely on its face: parking here on Sundays is banned. However, a wider interpretation would be “Since no mention is made of parking being banned on other days, it’s allowed to park here on other days.” Hence, the exception (“No parking on Sundays”) proves the rule (“Parking on other days is permitted”).
There is only one rule with no exception and that rule is: there is only one rule with no exception.
All the other rules have (at least) one exception.
Latest Answers