After finding an unusual solution to a very minor issue, I noticed myself thinking something I’d heard and personally stated many times before:
“Well, that’s the exception that proves the rule.”
And, then I caught myself.
You see, the exception didn’t actually prove the rule. It was simply an exception to the rule; a reversal of the usual way to effectively handle a similar situation.
Example: a recent post demonstrated a method used by Benjamin Franklin to win a difficult person over to his side of the issue. It was an exception to the rule. However, simply being the exception to the rule didn’t prove the rule.
Another example: while I practically always suggest not coming across as intimidating in the persuasion process, there are those extremely rare occasions when it is absolutely proper and productive to do so. So rare it is almost negligible, but it is an exception that happens. It is indeed an exception to the rule. But, it certainly doesn’t prove the rule.
So, here is my question: is the saying, “The exception that proves the rule” simply a false statement that we as a society have allowed ourselves to buy into as fact…or am I wrong; is there ever such thing as an exception that – in and of itself – actually proves the rule?
I’ve been wrong all-too-many times before and could very well be here, as well. But, I’m not coming up with any exceptions to this…at least not one that would “prove the rule.” 😉
—–
Well, turns out that I might be wrong after all…or not. Kathy, who was proofreading this for me, asked if I had checked for anything about this on Google. I had not. So, I did. Here is what it said. As you can see, there’s an explanation, but I’m still not sure the phrase makes sense as it’s usually used.
Would love to know your thoughts on this. 🙂
Enjoy this post? Receive an update when our next post is published by entering your best email address below and clicking Get Updates.
Ah, this is a tricky one! LOL Well, from my experiences with languages and grammar there are always, “exceptions to the rule”. But I believe that the exception does not prove the rule. I think I will take Kathy’s advice and google this topic/question. I am curious to read what the other readers will post today! Great post, nonetheless and keep up the “exceptional” work : )
Yes – a very tricky one. And as I read the examples in google, I seem to sway back and forth in my thoughts about the phrase. I do think we hear it less today than in former years. And I think that is good! Makes things less confusing.
Bob-
This post may be an “exception that proves the rule”
(The rule? A good blog post ought to state a case with clarity and make a point we can comprehend and put to use) – Well this post does neither, yet it is useful in that it gets you to thinking that you are perhaps using a lot of phrases the meaning of which is fuzzy at best and (thanks to Kathy) the post leads to a discovery of how the phrase evolved, how it used, where it originated. An education.
Thank you Bob. Thank you Kathy. Good job! I am more awake having considered all of this.
Wayne
I agree with Chi Chi. This IS a tricky one.
I believe the core intent of this statement is referencing the scientific method for acquiring new knowledge and reinforcing existing theory. To establish a ‘rule,’ one must whittle away all the ‘exceptions’ to a current ‘theory’ to prove it true or false.
Once established, each new observed possible ‘exception,’ then, either disproves a current rule/theory (in which case the current rule/theory must then be adjusted to integrate this new fact/exception) or it continues to reinforce it, thus ‘proving’ that it is still a valid supposition.
So is it possible that our ‘rules’ are only our most current suppositions/theories (the earth is flat, there is nothing smaller than an atom, Charlie Sheen has his life together…) measuring each ‘exception’ to come along to prove or to disprove its current value and validity?
Chi Chi, Barb and Wayne, thank you for your comments, feedback and really great points. Much appreciated!!
FINAL THOUGHT
…so maybe what we are actually seeking is ‘the exception that DISproves the rule.’
Greg, thank you for your thoughts. I’m afraid you’re too smart for my brain, however. I couldn’t really seem to follow.
I agree with Kathy. This post has left me thinking and contemplating. First what rule do I use that has an exception. Second, does it, in fact PROVE the rule? No answers yet. Perhaps you could give us more examples in a follow up post. One thing is sure: we tend to fall into little trite cliches that often need to be examined, reexamined, and then sometimes thrown out, OR, make up a whole new one, Bob!
Joe, thank you for sharing with us. I don’t think that any additional examples I come up with will prove or disprove the point any more than those in the article. I agree with your summation, though; basically; we need to be conscious of what we accept as fact and continue to question our premises.
I’ve never heard it put in this context, Bob! So…today was a huge lesson on language origins & usage.
Thank you for continually stretching my mind. 🙂
g
Thank YOU, Geneva. Much appreciated!
That posts takes at least TWO cups of coffee. But you’ve inspired me (once again). I think I’ll do a blog post titled Rules are Made to be Broken. Keep up the good work, Bob.
This one certainly made me think Bob! After thinking about it for a while and becoming more confused the more I thought, I googled it and came up with something I believe might be helpful. I found a page that suggested the word “Proves” could actually mean “Tests”. In which case the exception would test the validity of the rule. Here’s the link for anyone who would like to check it out: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html
In my opinion, in and of itself, the phrase makes no sense. This is a good lesson Bob. It’s taught me to place close attention to phrases I may use without really thinking what they mean. Thanks.
Thank you, Barbara. I like the idea of your post! 🙂
Mari, thank you for sharing with us!
It’s not the content of the exception. It is the fact that it is an exception itself, the sheer rareness of its use, that proves the rule.