Intellectual Footprint OT: The Expression, "The Exception Proves The Rule"...

[RutgersRaRa]

...doesn't mean that the exception is proof of the rule, since this would be self-defeating and idiotic (think: would more exceptions be greater proof of a rule?). The word "proves" is used in the sense of "tests" or "challenges" the rule, which makes sense, since an exception to a rule is an argument against its status as a rule, law, or similar attribution.

Next installment of "Intellectual Footprint OT" will be the expression, "(X) begs the question," which is frequently used so wrongly it is painful.

 

[Riceonthebanks]

Wrong. It is an exception whereby the nature of the exception proves the rule. The implication that prove means test is bogus.

As an example Many FM(Farm to Market roads) no longer connect to farms and have been given new names as urban and suburban sprawl have expanded and eaten up the farms that the roads formally connected to urban centers. However people still call these roads by their FM names, like FM 34. The rule is that people use the old FM names because they resist changing the names of things.

The exception is Smithville road which was FM 35. Before the FM roads were first created the path that then was adopted into the FM system was called Smithville road. Even though people refer to FM roads by their name FM names because they resist change Smithville road is an exception that proves the rule because no one ever called it FM 35 but instead always called it Smithville road because people are resistant to change.

 

[vm7118]

i love that people make posts without even doing a cursory google search on the topic. and then the balls to call it "intellectual"...

 

[RutgersRaRa]

i love that people make posts without even doing a cursory google search on the topic. and then the balls to call it "intellectual"...

I love how people think a cursory Google search will yield infallible results. As for your contention that I've done no work on this, consider that it was gleaned from a 12-hour seminar titled, "Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide To Critical Thinking Analysis," which includes such topics as the neuroscience of belief, pattern recognition, innate innumeracy, heuristics, probability (inc. regression towards the mean), and logical fallacies. So even if my supposition is incorrect (which it is not), your "argument" falls squarely in the category of ad hominem, FYI, and offered little intellectual substance.

So let's hear your argument in favor of that which contradicts a law or rule actually being proof of it. That would be more intellectual, so I'm granting you a do-over. Try staying away from Google, and arguing the merits. I am also looking forward to your input on what "begging the question" is, perhaps prior to me describing it. Again, no googling.

 

[FanuSanu52]

I won't be too hard on ya because I enjoy your left-field posts, but you really stepped in it here. Multiple interpretations exist, but all reliable sources point to the proper origins being "proves the (existence) of the rule," not tests the rule, not proves the rule to be factually accurate. The classic example, which I believe ties in quite nicely to our favorite college town, is "Parking is free on Sundays" proving that the rule is you have to pay for parking the rest of the week. So without having that rule spelled out, the exception proved its existence.

Here's what our 2014/15 rivals at WSU have to say about it:

"The Latin original of this saying dates back over two millennia to Cicero. It means if you make an exception to a rule, a rule must exist. If you say “in case of fire students may use the emergency exits” it is clear that the rule is that normally students are not supposed to use those exits. Few people understand this point and they misuse the phrase “the exception proves the rule” to mean that a rule is not really a rule unless there is an exception to it. This makes no sense. It’s better to simply avoid this misleading phrase." http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/exception.html

It's going to be difficult to salvage this series after that rocky start, but I do think "sour grapes" would be a worthy entry. It's misused here regularly, though the actual meaning is quite useful for the recruiting conversation.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Wrong. It is an exception whereby the nature of the exception proves the rule. The implication that prove means test is bogus.

As an example Many FM(Farm to Market roads) no longer connect to farms and have been given new names as urban and suburban sprawl have expanded and eaten up the farms that the roads formally connected to urban centers. However people still call these roads by their FM names, like FM 34. The rule is that people use the old FM names because they resist changing the names of things.

The exception is Smithville road which was FM 35. Before the FM roads were first created the path that then was adopted into the FM system was called Smithville road. Even though people refer to FM roads by their name FM names because they resist change Smithville road is an exception that proves the rule because no one ever called it FM 35 but instead always called it Smithville road because people are resistant to change.

Thanks for the reply, and I give you an A for effort, but nomenclature is not how the expression "proves the rule" is commonly applied. In other words, in your example, the name of the road wasn't a rule, it was a convention from convenience, but not a rule.

Put it this way, to give a more common example. If the rule is that all swans are white, and you come across a scarlet swan, that doesn't prove the rule, it challenges it, so much so that an account must be made of the new swan because the rule is in jeopardy.

 

[mildone]

As a rule, I like to participate in threads such as this one where my intelligence becomes obvious to even the most casual observer. This one time, however, I'm going to make an exception.

Which begs the questions: what denotes participation and what is intelligence?

 

[RutgersRaRa]

I won't be too hard on ya because I enjoy your left-field posts, but you really stepped in it here. Multiple interpretations exist, but all reliable sources point to the proper origins being "proves the (existence) of the rule," not tests the rule, not proves the rule to be factually accurate. The classic example, which I believe ties in quite nicely to our favorite college town, is "Parking is free on Sundays" proving that the rule is you have to pay for parking the rest of the week. So without having that rule spelled out, the exception proved its existence.

Here's what our 2014/15 rivals at WSU have to say about it:

"The Latin original of this saying dates back over two millennia to Cicero. It means if you make an exception to a rule, a rule must exist. If you say “in case of fire students may use the emergency exits” it is clear that the rule is that normally students are not supposed to use those exits. Few people understand this point and they misuse the phrase “the exception proves the rule” to mean that a rule is not really a rule unless there is an exception to it. This makes no sense. It’s better to simply avoid this misleading phrase." http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/exception.html

It's going to be difficult to salvage this series after that rocky start, but I do think "sour grapes" would be a worthy entry. It's misused here regularly, though the actual meaning is quite useful for the recruiting conversation.

Fana Fanu Fanu!!! Left-wing? Arghhhh!!! Left field, yes, but left wing---no no no!!!

As to your post about the possible interpretation of the expression that dates back to Cicero, it isn't a satisfactory explanation as to the origin of the expression, as well as what might be a later application of it. The purported explanation of Cicero's relates merely to the existence of a rule, not to its substance, which is of little moment since it has no practical application. In the fire emergency to which you alluded, that would be a legitimate application of the phrase, but is tangential to its original meaning. Phrases, as with words, take on nuances over time and even change their meanings (e.g., literally, which nowadays means figuratively, and is a complete bastardization of the word). In the fire emergency, the rule would thus be, "Emergency exits may be used in the case of fire." No further explanation required.

The parking example is very easy to dismiss as being in favor of your argument, as it actually works against it because, in that example, there is little value in proving that a rule exists. Imagine that a parking official from Mine Street on Rutgers Campus is writing you a ticket as you are returning to your car. She hasn't filled in your license plate or the offense on the ticket yet, so you may still get out of it. You say to her, "Officer!! Officer!! I'm here, please don't give me a ticket!!" She asks, "Why shouldn't I give you ticket?" You say, "Because during the week there is rule that says you can't park here." Her response would be along the lines of, "Congratulations on proving that a rule governing parking here exists during the week, but you still can't park here on weekends. Them's the rules."

When we switch the argument from a purely academic exercise to include pragmatic considerations, it sheds light on the likely meaning of the expression and whether the interpretation of Cicero is correct, likely, worth of consideration, or flat out incorrect.

Back to the original point: an exception to a rule challenges the rule itself, and has practical benefits. As for the rocky start, the rockiness is attributable to my esteemed and semi-esteemed colleagues on here. You are one of the esteemed ones--hip hip, hooray!! As an added bonus, our collective intellectual footprint has risen since we are thinking about it now.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

As a rule, I like to participate in threads such as this one where my intelligence becomes obvious to even the most casual observer. This one time, however, I'm going to make an exception.

Which begs the questions: what denotes participation and what is intelligence?

Uh oh, you went and did it--faux pas of the fauxiest sort! Stay tuned for the next edition of, Intellectual Footprint OT.

 

[mildone]

Uh oh, you went and did it--faux pas of the fauxiest sort! Stay tuned for the next edition of, Intellectual Footprint OT.

Ah but not so. Read it again so you can know. I'm all friend; never faux.

 

[hrdcorhays]

Once I learned the correct use of begs the question, it makes my skin crawl when people misuse it. No one has a clue what that phrase means.

Notice I didn't say literally makes my skin crawl, which has become the most bastardized word in the English language.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Once I learned the correct use of begs the question, it makes my skin crawl when people misuse it. No one has a clue what that phrase means.

Notice I didn't say literally makes my skin crawl, which has become the most bastardized word in the English language.

A few years ago, an employee of mine was relaying a story of a tough time she had been going through, and in the narrative she inserted that the situation "literally killed me!" (emphasis hers). I decided to take the high road and let her live.

 

[RUChoppin]

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion on my own merit, but Snopes puts RaRa in a group they label "some who think they are in the know" and agrees with Fanu.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion on my own merit, but Snopes puts RaRa in a group they label "some who think they are in the know" and agrees with Fanu.

^^I'm confused, but at least it isn't Snipes who's got me in his sights.

 

[RUChoppin]

^^I'm confused, but at least it isn't Snipes who's got me in his sights.

There's an embedded hyperlink on the word Snopes.

"The meaning of 'The exception proves the rule' is actually quite different from its most common usage even though its core concept, that an exception establishes the validity of a rule or law, is accurate.

Some who think they're in the know attempt to explain the seeming contradiction of 'The exception proves the rule' by looking at the verb used in the aphorism in a less common fashion. While we're now most familiar with 'prove' as a verb meaning 'to establish as truth,' an older meaning of that self-same word that has since almost disappeared from everyday usage defines it as meaning 'to test.' By those lights, 'The exception proves the rule' should be read as 'The exception tests the rule' — that is, the contradiction puts the claim through its paces and finds it wanting.

Yet even that is not the case. Our puzzling saying is actually a legal maxim drawn from early 17th century English law. It was then written in Latin as Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which translates into English as Exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted. More simply, 'The exception proves the rule exists' — that certain exceptions are spelled out in a legal document or announcement confirms the rule (minus the exceptions) is in force at all other times."

 

[FanuSanu52]

Fana Fanu Fanu!!! Left-wing? Arghhhh!!! Left field, yes, but left wing---no no no!!!

As to your post about the possible interpretation of the expression that dates back to Cicero, it isn't a satisfactory explanation as to the origin of the expression, as well as what might be a later application of it. The purported explanation of Cicero's relates merely to the existence of a rule, not to its substance, which is of little moment since it has no practical application. In the fire emergency to which you alluded, that would be a legitimate application of the phrase, but is tangential to its original meaning. Phrases, as with words, take on nuances over time and even change their meanings (e.g., literally, which nowadays means figuratively, and is a complete bastardization of the word). In the fire emergency, the rule would thus be, "Emergency exits may be used in the case of fire." No further explanation required.

The parking example is very easy to dismiss as being in favor of your argument, as it actually works against it because, in that example, there is little value in proving that a rule exists. Imagine that a parking official from Mine Street on Rutgers Campus is writing you a ticket as you are returning to your car. She hasn't filled in your license plate or the offense on the ticket yet, so you may still get out of it. You say to her, "Officer!! Officer!! I'm here, please don't give me a ticket!!" She asks, "Why shouldn't I give you ticket?" You say, "Because during the week there is rule that says you can't park here." Her response would be along the lines of, "Congratulations on proving that a rule governing parking here exists during the week, but you still can't park here on weekends. Them's the rules."

When we switch the argument from a purely academic exercise to include pragmatic considerations, it sheds light on the likely meaning of the expression and whether the interpretation of Cicero is correct, likely, worth of consideration, or flat out incorrect.

Back to the original point: an exception to a rule challenges the rule itself, and has practical benefits. As for the rocky start, the rockiness is attributable to my esteemed and semi-esteemed colleagues on here. You are one of the esteemed ones--hip hip, hooray!! As an added bonus, our collective intellectual footprint has risen since we are thinking about it now.

Yes, left-field, that's what I'm saying. Your ongoing string of ITT posts. I admit, in my early days and weeks on the board, I questioned, "What is wrong with this guy?" but then I came to find those posts an interesting part of the off-season dialogue.

Perhaps its because so many words have multiple meanings and usages to begin with, perhaps it's because they evolved from a series of primal grunts, perhaps because we have authorities to actually change and add meanings, but I welcome the evolution of individual words. In many cases, it makes them more useful. The word "unique" comes to mind. I see that usage of "literally" as more of slang/hyperbole than a proper evolution in meaning.

On the other hand, I do have a problem with assigning new meanings to phrases. Phrases were architected to convey specific ideas, and to assign our own meanings to them makes them rather useless. In this case, the best information says that this is an old Latin phrase meaning what I described.

This entire phrase is pretty useless by any meaning, imo, but I think something like "sour grapes" illustrates why strict interpretations are superior. The original meaning succinctly describes a specific scenario very well, whereas the more popular evolution is entirely generic and its meaning could be expressed equally or better in any of a million other ways.

 

[RU848789]

...doesn't mean that the exception is proof of the rule, since this would be self-defeating and idiotic (think: would more exceptions be greater proof of a rule?). The word "proves" is used in the sense of "tests" or "challenges" the rule, which makes sense, since an exception to a rule is an argument against its status as a rule, law, or similar attribution.

Next installment of "Intellectual Footprint OT" will be the expression, "(X) begs the question," which is frequently used so wrongly it is painful.

The RationalWiki page is damn good for this entry and makes a very good case for RaRa being WrongWrong, at least with respect to his thinking that the word "proves" is used in the sense of "tests" the rule - the wiki comes close to dismissing that Old English interpretation.

I also think they provided the best example seen, so far, of how the phrase was intended to be used: "For example, on a shop sign saying "we are open every day except Christmas," the exception ("except Christmas") reinforces the rule ("we open every day") to be true in all cases other than that one stated exception."

The Latin interpretation
The original meaning of the phrase was that an exception to a rule demonstrates that there is a rule in order for it to be an exception. The full Latin phrase was exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, meaning "the exception proves the rule to be true in cases not excepted." For example, on a shop sign saying "we open every day except Christmas," the exception ("except Christmas") reinforces the rule ("we open every day") to be true in all cases other than that one stated exception. Another example would be a statement that implies an unspoken rule. For instance, "free parking on Sunday" obviously implies that one must pay to park on every other day of the week. This is a rule that is proved by its exception.

The existence of the same concept in multiple European languages supports this etymology. For example Spanish "La excepción confirma la regla", French "L'exception qui confirme la règle" and Romanian "Excepția confirmă regula". Even non-Latin language German has "Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regel". It would be really surprising if the Anglo-Saxon version outlined below had coincidently arrived at the same counter-intuitive statement but via a different route.

[edit]The Old English interpretation
The phrase is also sometimes, though with less reliability, claimed to mean "the exception tests the rule," since the original meaning of "to prove" in Old English (originating from the Latin word probat, compare probe) was closer to "to test." This original use of "to prove" meaning "to test" can also be seen in the phrase "proof spirit" — which was liquor which had been tested and shown to be of appropriate quality. This usage still exists — a site designated for testing equipment or weaponry may be called a "proving ground" (most notably in the US Military). A firearm cartridge, or round, designed to produce pressures higher than what a firearm is rated for is called a "proof round" Firearms are required to be able to fire a "proof round" without failure to ensure they are safe to use with standard pressure rounds. A further example, used both metaphorically and literally, is the term bulletproof.

In some cases, either of these definitions of "prove" create a working sentence, which somewhat explains the change in definition. For example I can say that porn found on a priest's hard drive "proves" that he is a paedophile, and it works for either definition; it either (a) provides hard evidence of paedophilia, thus proving the accusation to be true in the modern sense of the word, or (b) provides a legitimate test of whether or not the priest is a paedophile — if the subjects of the porn are under age, he is defined as a paedophile. However, the aphorism "the exception that proves the rule" was not treated properly by the shift in definition, and now it looks like a way for idiots to justify their idiocy.

Hence the phrase can be used correctly in the context of the scientific method, when testing a hypothesis by examining possible exceptions to it and whether they invalidate the hypothesis. So if I hypothesise that "all swans are white" (under the condition that at least one swan exists), the discovery of the black swan (Cygnus atratus) "proves" (meaning "tests") my rule. In this case, the rule is falsified.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

 

[RU848789]

Once I learned the correct use of begs the question, it makes my skin crawl when people misuse it. No one has a clue what that phrase means.

Notice I didn't say literally makes my skin crawl, which has become the most bastardized word in the English language.

A few years ago, an employee of mine was relaying a story of a tough time she had been going through, and in the narrative she inserted that the situation "literally killed me!" (emphasis hers). I decided to take the high road and let her live.

I think we can all figuratively hold hands and sing kumbaya over this one.

 

[RUChoppin]

Since we've gotten onto pet peeves... one that comes up at work a lot is "flush out the details" (cringe). It always makes me wonder where the details are hiding.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Yes, left-field, that's what I'm saying. Your ongoing string of ITT posts. I admit, in my early days and weeks on the board, I questioned, "What is wrong with this guy?" but then I came to find those posts an interesting part of the off-season dialogue.

Perhaps its because so many words have multiple meanings and usages to begin with, perhaps it's because they evolved from a series of primal grunts, perhaps because we have authorities to actually change and add meanings, but I welcome the evolution of individual words. In many cases, it makes them more useful. The word "unique" comes to mind. I see that usage of "literally" as more of slang/hyperbole than a proper evolution in meaning.

On the other hand, I do have a problem with assigning new meanings to phrases. Phrases were architected to convey specific ideas, and to assign our own meanings to them makes them rather useless. In this case, the best information says that this is an old Latin phrase meaning what I described.

This entire phrase is pretty useless by any meaning, imo, but I think something like "sour grapes" illustrates why strict interpretations are superior. The original meaning succinctly describes a specific scenario very well, whereas the more popular evolution is entirely generic and its meaning could be expressed equally or better in any of a million other ways.

Nice assessment. And, in accordance with the OP, our intellectual footprint has just gone up (in the offseason, I might add, which is when it may have the best chance of doing just that). Though I disagree with the appropriateness of expressions being cemented in time, since they rarely are, there is a benefit to understanding their genesis and perhaps keeping them static--food for another discussion, perhaps.

As for your earlier wonderings about "What is wrong with this guy?", I'm on safe ground when I say, I'm a Rutgers fan and read the boards.

 

[RU848789]

Since we've gotten onto pet peeves... one that comes up at work a lot is "flush out the details" (cringe). It always makes me wonder where the details are hiding.

Any time a female at work uses that phrase, I correct her by saying, "don't you mean you intend to douche out the details?" HR loves that one. :>)

 

[RU848789]

As a rule, I like to participate in threads such as this one where my intelligence becomes obvious to even the most casual observer. This one time, however, I'm going to make an exception.

Which begs the questions: what denotes participation and what is intelligence?

But, but, but...how can you say you're making an exception, implying you're not participating in this thread, when you're actually participating in this thread? I think I may have discovered some sort of logical singularity...

 

[RutgersRaRa]

...However, the aphorism "the exception that proves the rule" was not treated properly by the shift in definition, and now it looks like a way for idiots to justify their idiocy.

Hence the phrase can be used correctly in the context of the scientific method, when testing a hypothesis by examining possible exceptions to it and whether they invalidate the hypothesis. So if I hypothesise that "all swans are white" (under the condition that at least one swan exists), the discovery of the black swan (Cygnus atratus) "proves" (meaning "tests") my rule. In this case, the rule is falsified.

The part of your post that I quoted above means that I am not wrong, (WrongWrong?--gotta admit, I laughed) merely that there may be two meanings assigned to the phrase. The early English is far more archaic, whereas given the scientific world in which we live, the one I gave in my OP is the better application of it. The word "falsified" (in your quote, above) in reference to a rule was either started by or popularized by Sir Karl Popper, a British philosopher of science, who (I'm going by memory here and paraphrasing) posited that for a scientific principle to be of any value, it must be falsifiable. He had a five-point litmus test of scientific theories, and his ideas are widely embraced, though not necessarily agreed with.

So yes, in order for a rule (or theory) to be falsified it must first be challenged by contradictory examples, which is what I originally posited. So RaRa stays.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Any time a female at work uses that phrase, I correct her by saying, "don't you mean you intend to douche out the details?" HR loves that one. :>)

[roll]

I want video of that posted here!!

 

[mullerpesq]

Rule: safety with your campfire will ensure a more enjoyable camping experience!

Exception: video of drunk, screaming redneck running around a forest, swinging a flaming torch wildly and clearly having a fantastic time.

...followed by a pic of said offender in handcuffs and a burnt, smoking landscape.

The exception proves the rule.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Rule: safety with your campfire will ensure a more enjoyable camping experience!

Exception: video of drunk, screaming redneck running around a forest, swinging a flaming torch wildly and clearly having a fantastic time.

...followed by a pic of said offender in handcuffs and a burnt, smoking landscape.

The exception proves the rule.

The redneck had more fun, so the rule was manifestly disproven by the exception. Especially if he hired you as his lawyer--he'll be out in no time.

 

[FanuSanu52]

Nice assessment. And, in accordance with the OP, our intellectual footprint has just gone up (in the offseason, I might add, which is when it may have the best chance of doing just that). Though I disagree with the appropriateness of expressions being cemented in time, since they rarely are, there is a benefit to understanding their genesis and perhaps keeping them static--food for another discussion, perhaps.

As for your earlier wonderings about "What is wrong with this guy?", I'm on safe ground when I say, I'm a Rutgers fan and read the boards.

Not a bad discussion. There are, of course ... exceptions to every rule.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Not a bad discussion. There are, of course ... exceptions to every rule.

And that's a wrap, ladies and gentlemen. By Board standards, greatness has been achieved. :smiley:

 

[mildone]

But, but, but...how can you say you're making an exception, implying you're not participating in this thread, when you're actually participating in this thread? I think I may have discovered some sort of logical singularity...

Exactly. I did qualify my post by asking what denotes participation. The quantum effects of my post were intentional, of course, which I'd explain but nobody here has the math for it.

 

[mildone]

Since we've gotten onto pet peeves... one that comes up at work a lot is "flush out the details" (cringe). It always makes me wonder where the details are hiding.

Ha ha ha. Flush out the details. It's that kind of things that explains why The Donald can have traction in a presidential campaign.

 

[mildone]

Nice assessment. And, in accordance with the OP, our intellectual footprint has just gone up (in the offseason, I might add, which is when it may have the best chance of doing just that). Though I disagree with the appropriateness of expressions being cemented in time, since they rarely are, there is a benefit to understanding their genesis and perhaps keeping them static--food for another discussion, perhaps.

As for your earlier wonderings about "What is wrong with this guy?", I'm on safe ground when I say, I'm a Rutgers fan and read the boards.

I've had some wine tonight and so perhaps this thing I'm about to espouse is a really bad idea. But I was thinking that the in-game threads would be a good place to drop a pseudo-intellectual discussion such as this one. One minute we're being bipolar, the next we're debating the true meaning of love.

 

[mildone]

Oops - I didn't realize the thread was wrapped. Oh well, I'm the sort of douchebag that thinks rules only apply to other people anyway, exceptions notwithstanding.