5 ms·

The exception that proves the rule.

Gormo 1mo ago
The phrase "exception that proves the rule" refers to an apparent exception to the rule's outputs actually being explained by it having divergent inputs, i.e. if you claim P=>Q, then the exception that proves the rule would be an instance of ~Q=>~P. What's different about computers that makes this applicable here?
- vidarh 1mo ago
  The term is often also used simply as claiming the existence of a rule by claiming the exception. It's one of those terms where I am pretty confident that I see the original use more rarely than the technically incorrect variations to the point I'd hesitate to call them incorrect any more.
  - vlovich123 1mo ago
    > This meaning of the phrase, which for Fowler is the original and clearest meaning ... This argument states if an exception exists or has to be stated, then this exception proves that there must be some rule to which the case is an exception So no, OP used the correct definition and no wide spread usage uses ~Q=>~P. That's a weird logical formulation that was randomly concocted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule Said another way: Rule: It's hard to find a product that hasn't gotten worse or more expensive, even adjusted for inflation. Exception: computers i think are more affordable now than even 20 years ago, in bang for buck This proves the rule because if it's an exception to the rule, therefore the rule must exist in the first place.
    - vidarh 1mo ago
      That argument only works if someone states the exception from the start, not when someone makes the claim while using the term.
      - vlovich123 1mo ago
        No you’re just intentionally misunderstanding the usage to avoid admitting you’re incorrect. The usage in the thread is correct. Poster 1: everything is worse Poster 2: but compute has gotten better Poster 3: that’s the exception to the rule that everything has gotten worse, proving the rule exists
        vidarh 1mo ago
        No I am not. What you're demonstrating is exactly the basis for why the new usage is spreading. Poster 2 has raised a disagreement with the original claim. There was no implied rule. Poster 3 used the claim of it being an exception to imply a third rule that neither of the first two posters had claimed, as opposed to making a statement where the exception demonstrated the existence of a rule in the first place. If you're going to make false claims and lie about my intent, then at least don't be entirely wrong while doing it. If you're going to continue this thread you can talk to yourself - I have no interest in continuing a discussion when you start lying about my intent.
    - Gormo 1mo ago
      > So no, OP used the correct definition and no wide spread usage uses ~Q=>~P. That's a weird logical formulation that was randomly concocted. No, most logically coherent usage of that phrase absolutely does reflect ~Q=>~P, which was not "randomly concocted", but was rather was determined via logical reasoning. > Rule: It's hard to find a product that hasn't gotten worse or more expensive, even adjusted for inflation. > Exception: computers i think are more affordable now than even 20 years ago, in bang for buck > This proves the rule because if it's an exception to the rule, therefore the rule must exist in the first place. No, a standalone claim that contradicts the premise of a previously claimed general rule does not "prove" that original claim. If I say "it hasn't rained all week" and you respond with "but it did rain on Tuesday", you're pointing out evidence that falsifies the general claim about it not raining, not demonstrating an exception that strengthens its validity otherwise. This usage only makes sense if the "exceptional" claim is formulated as an exception to some unstated assumption, but even there, does not actually substantiate the validity of that assumption, but rather just reveals that the assumption is being made. Another commenter offered a good example of this: "no parking on Saturdays" carries the implied premise that parking is permitted on other days of the week: it's nature as an imperative statement that applies special treatment to a particular case implies that the general case is something else. But "computers have become cheaper over the past 20 years" does not in itself imply any assumptions about general economic trends or other categories of goods, and certainly doesn't prove the validity any assumptions about either.
- nkrisc 1mo ago
  What they likely mean is that pointing to one exception that is notable only because it violates the general trend is not evidence against the trend.
- Negitivefrags 1mo ago
  This is not what the “exception that proves the rule” means. If a sign says “No parking on saturdays”, that is an exception that can be used to infer the rule “parking here is okay the rest of the time”.
  - Gormo 1mo ago
    Both usages are common, and Wikipedia references both of them. But in the sense that it was being used, "rules can have exceptions, therefore this exception 'proves' the rule rather than falsifying it" is not valid, and is not consistent with either usage.

Gormo 1mo ago

The phrase "exception that proves the rule" refers to an apparent exception to the rule's outputs actually being explained by it having divergent inputs, i.e. if you claim P=>Q, then the exception that proves the rule would be an instance of ~Q=>~P. What's different about computers that makes this applicable here?

vidarh 1mo ago
The term is often also used simply as claiming the existence of a rule by claiming the exception. It's one of those terms where I am pretty confident that I see the original use more rarely than the technically incorrect variations to the point I'd hesitate to call them incorrect any more.
- vlovich123 1mo ago
  > This meaning of the phrase, which for Fowler is the original and clearest meaning ... This argument states if an exception exists or has to be stated, then this exception proves that there must be some rule to which the case is an exception So no, OP used the correct definition and no wide spread usage uses ~Q=>~P. That's a weird logical formulation that was randomly concocted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule Said another way: Rule: It's hard to find a product that hasn't gotten worse or more expensive, even adjusted for inflation. Exception: computers i think are more affordable now than even 20 years ago, in bang for buck This proves the rule because if it's an exception to the rule, therefore the rule must exist in the first place.
  - vidarh 1mo ago
    That argument only works if someone states the exception from the start, not when someone makes the claim while using the term.
    - vlovich123 1mo ago
      No you’re just intentionally misunderstanding the usage to avoid admitting you’re incorrect. The usage in the thread is correct. Poster 1: everything is worse Poster 2: but compute has gotten better Poster 3: that’s the exception to the rule that everything has gotten worse, proving the rule exists
      - vidarh 1mo ago
        No I am not. What you're demonstrating is exactly the basis for why the new usage is spreading. Poster 2 has raised a disagreement with the original claim. There was no implied rule. Poster 3 used the claim of it being an exception to imply a third rule that neither of the first two posters had claimed, as opposed to making a statement where the exception demonstrated the existence of a rule in the first place. If you're going to make false claims and lie about my intent, then at least don't be entirely wrong while doing it. If you're going to continue this thread you can talk to yourself - I have no interest in continuing a discussion when you start lying about my intent.
  - Gormo 1mo ago
    > So no, OP used the correct definition and no wide spread usage uses ~Q=>~P. That's a weird logical formulation that was randomly concocted. No, most logically coherent usage of that phrase absolutely does reflect ~Q=>~P, which was not "randomly concocted", but was rather was determined via logical reasoning. > Rule: It's hard to find a product that hasn't gotten worse or more expensive, even adjusted for inflation. > Exception: computers i think are more affordable now than even 20 years ago, in bang for buck > This proves the rule because if it's an exception to the rule, therefore the rule must exist in the first place. No, a standalone claim that contradicts the premise of a previously claimed general rule does not "prove" that original claim. If I say "it hasn't rained all week" and you respond with "but it did rain on Tuesday", you're pointing out evidence that falsifies the general claim about it not raining, not demonstrating an exception that strengthens its validity otherwise. This usage only makes sense if the "exceptional" claim is formulated as an exception to some unstated assumption, but even there, does not actually substantiate the validity of that assumption, but rather just reveals that the assumption is being made. Another commenter offered a good example of this: "no parking on Saturdays" carries the implied premise that parking is permitted on other days of the week: it's nature as an imperative statement that applies special treatment to a particular case implies that the general case is something else. But "computers have become cheaper over the past 20 years" does not in itself imply any assumptions about general economic trends or other categories of goods, and certainly doesn't prove the validity any assumptions about either.
nkrisc 1mo ago
What they likely mean is that pointing to one exception that is notable only because it violates the general trend is not evidence against the trend.
Negitivefrags 1mo ago
This is not what the “exception that proves the rule” means. If a sign says “No parking on saturdays”, that is an exception that can be used to infer the rule “parking here is okay the rest of the time”.
- Gormo 1mo ago
  Both usages are common, and Wikipedia references both of them. But in the sense that it was being used, "rules can have exceptions, therefore this exception 'proves' the rule rather than falsifying it" is not valid, and is not consistent with either usage.