Skip to main content

When the exception proves the rule it disproves it

I heard it again on the TV the other day, that dreaded sentence It's the exception that proves the rule. If ever a sentence (and a cliché at that) wreaked havoc it's this one. The way it is almost always employed is confusing nonsense.

It's likely to be something like this. Someone says 'Every time we catch the train it's late.' Someone else says 'You've got a short memory. It was dead on time this morning.' The first person nods sagely. 'Ah yes,' they say. 'That's the exception that proves the rule.' Meaning that in some way this was a one-off blip, and the rule still holds. According to this philosophy, you should expect some kind of exception to all rules, and now we can tick it off. The rule has been proved true.

No, no, no!

Prove here is as in proving ground. It means to test. Think The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So when we say 'The exception proves the rule' we mean that the existence of an exception tests the rule to breaking point - the rule is incorrect and can be ignored. In the case of the train, it's simply not true that that 'every time we catch the train it's late' - the exception of it being on time tests this rule and finds it wanting.

Everyone gets this wrong. Except you, I'm sure. You must be the exception that proves the rule.

Comments

  1. Yes. This annoys me too.

    If you have an exception to a rule, it says that your rule is wrong (or perhaps requires some extra conditions adding to it).

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you are taking the saying too literally.

    A better example would be the rule that downhill skiers come from countries with lots of snow, the exception being Eddie the Eagle. Any rule of thumb is likely to fail a case as bizarre as that. If this is the best exception that we can come up with, then in a sense it does validate the rule.

    I agree that the saying has become a cliché though and I daresay it is often misused, as in the example you quote. I think that it can only be applied to generalisations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ha! Good one! These things drive me nuts, too.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense