"Exception that proves the rule" fallacy?

[Peacock]

So sometimes I come across a stereotypical statement such as "all atheists are cynics" or something similar. I then respond with "what about Sagan" and other examples. I then get the fallacy "Well they're the exception that proves the rule". In your experience, what is the best way to respond to this?

[ANTPogo]

So sometimes I come across a stereotypical statement such as "all atheists are cynics" or something similar. I then respond with "what about Sagan" and other examples. I then get the fallacy "Well they're the exception that proves the rule". In your experience, what is the best way to respond to this?

This (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/731/whats-the-meaning-of-the-expression-thats-the-exception-that-proves-the-rule) might help.

[Professor Yaffle]

Ask them what they mean by the phrase.

[P.J. Denyer]

This-:

The proverb's meaning must be expounded not in the context of natural or psychological law but of civil law. Alan Bliss, in A Dictionary of Words and Phrases in Current English, has the following to say about the origin of this phrase: "Exception probat regulam [Lat.], the exception proves the rule. A legal maxim of which the complete text is: exceptio probat [or (con)firmat] regulam in casibus non exceptis--`the fact that certain exceptions are made (in a legal document) confirms that the rule is valid in all other cases.'"

The application is this. Suppose a law is stated in such a way as to include an exception, e.g., "Parking is prohibited on this street from 7 AM to 7 PM, Sundays and holidays excepted." The explicit mention of the exception means that NO other exceptions are to be inferred. Thus we should take the Latin verb probare in the maxim to have the sense of "to increase the force of." --Hugh Miller, Chicago



And curse you ANTPogo for linking to the Straight Dope where (I now remember) I learned this before I could appear all clever by giving the answer myself....

[ANTPogo]

And curse you ANTPogo for linking to the Straight Dope where (I now remember) I learned this before I could appear all clever by giving the answer myself....

Sorry! :p

[Professor Yaffle]

Its all very well arguing about the origins of the phrase, but if that's not what they meant by it, it won't get you anywhere other than looking like a know-it-all. I'd suggest asking them to explain what they mean in other words. You'll probably find that they have no idea what they mean by it and are just trotting out the phrase without thinking about it.

[Modified]

Its all very well arguing about the origins of the phrase, but if that's not what they meant by it, it won't get you anywhere other than looking like a know-it-all. I'd suggest asking them to explain what they mean in other words. You'll probably find that they have no idea what they mean by it and are just trotting out the phrase without thinking about it.

The origin provides a clear and sensible meaning though.

[Peacock]

Yes, this is the issue I have. You lose the argument by being pedantic, and they feel they've proven their point.

[Leumas]

So sometimes I come across a stereotypical statement such as "all atheists are cynics" or something similar. I then respond with "what about Sagan" and other examples. I then get the fallacy "Well they're the exception that proves the rule". In your experience, what is the best way to respond to this?



The way you stated the situation it seems to me that they are the ones making the rule.....”all atheists are cynics”.

So when you cite exceptions to the contrary you are in fact showing that the rule is BROKEN..... not proven.


So these exceptions are BREAKING the rule not PROVING IT.

Besides..... the rule they made up is itself a fallacy of faulty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization).


And no.....you will not sound pedantic or pompous when you point out to them the fallacy of their logic.... but especially so since they started it anyway albeit fallaciously.


Anyway.... what is wrong with being a cynic..... that is like saying there is something wrong with being skeptical and pragmatic and seeing reality as it is instead of through the filters of wishful thinking and naiveté.

When someone tries to sell you a Multi Level Marketing SCAM and you are a cynic you leave with your wallet unviolated. If you are like so many greedy hopeful morons then you will be hooked and reeled into the basket to end up a tasty morsel – part of the supper of the hucksters FISHERS OF MEN.

[Marduk]

So sometimes I come across a stereotypical statement such as "all atheists are cynics" or something similar. I then respond with "what about Sagan" and other examples. I then get the fallacy "Well they're the exception that proves the rule". In your experience, what is the best way to respond to this?

physical violence
;)

[mike3]

I'm curious: Would it be possible to test in a "scientific" manner whether or not "cynicism" is more common among atheists than religious people, or less common?

[psionl0]

From "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by Robert Thouless (1953):
The attempt to ignore a sound refutation of an extreme position by the use of this formula, "The exception proves the rule", is a fairly common trick and is obviously a dishonest one. It can be dealt with by pointing out (what is obvious) that an exception does not prove that a general rule is true, but that it is false. One can also point out that the word 'prove' in this old saying originally had the meaning of 'test', and that it is true that the way to test a general rule is to look for exceptions to it, whereas it is obviously false to say that finding exceptions proves the rule in the modern sense of showing that it is true. If one is more anxious to discover the truth than to triumph over one's opponent, one may try to discover what more moderate proposition is true.

[Information Analyst]

Granted, the phrase is widely mis-used as suggested, but I always understood the "exception" to be to the "rule" but rather to other/prevailing conditions/rules. I house other words, exceptions to the "old rule" prove the "new rule."

A good example - albeit a fictional one - appears in the 1972 BBC TV play The Stone Tape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stone_Tape). In it, a group of research scientists working for an electronics company move into new premises in an old country, where one of them sees what she initially takes to be a ghos tin a old storeroom, but which they later theorise is a "recording" imprinted in the fabric of that part of the building - hence the title. One effect they notice is that not everyone experiences the "recording" in the same way: some hear and see it with varying degrees of vividness, while others only hear it at lower volumes, but almost without exception they feel the room getting cold, even though air temperature sensors show no actual change. The sole exception is one of the computer programmers, Stewart, who sees and hear nothing, and maintains he never feels the room getting cold when others do. This is despite him being a tall skinny guy, "a natural shiverer" a colleague says him, and he agrees, joking that his mother was always telling him to "wrap up warm." Stewart is then declared to be "the exception that proves the rule," with the "rule" being that people experience the "recording" in different ways, but not him, even though under normal conditions he would be the most likely to feel the "minimum effect" of the "recording," i.e. a sudden drop in temperature.

[psionl0]

A good example - albeit a fictional one - appears in the 1972 BBC TV play The Stone Tape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stone_Tape).Stewart could hardly be considered an "exception to the rule" if no rule had been formulated prior to all the data being in.

Stewart could have been considered an exception to the rule, "people feel the temperature change in the the storeroom even though it can't be measured by a thermometer". Of course, Stewart proves this rule to be false. (Actually the rule, as expressed, is one of those fallacious statements where "all" is implied but only "some" is true).

[HansMustermann]

I would also like to point out that similar sayings exist in other languages which don't have such alternate meanings for "prove". E.g., the German version says pretty literally, "the exception CONFIRMS the rule". ("Die Ausnahme bestätigt die Regel.") There is no alternate, historical or whatever meaning of "bestätigen (http://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/best%C3%A4tigen)" that means "test".

Also, that this is what it's used to mean whenever someone uses it. It's obviously used as a way to handwave the idea that exceptions aren't just to be arbitrarily dismissed (like in a "No True Scotsman"), but actually are confirmation that the bogus rule is true. Suddenly the exception isn't just ignorable, but verily empyrical evidence of the rule's being correct.

Which is, of course, obviously bogus as it goes against the basic logic that "not(all X are Y)" is "an X exists which isn't an Y". I.e., it's not even some sneakier attempt that warrants an elaborate explanation of why it's a fallacy (i.e., invalid inferrence), as just flat out denying logic.

[Information Analyst]

Stewart could hardly be considered an "exception to the rule" if no rule had been formulated prior to all the data being in.

Stewart could have been considered an exception to the rule, "people feel the temperature change in the the storeroom even though it can't be measured by a thermometer". Of course, Stewart proves this rule to be false. (Actually the rule, as expressed, is one of those fallacious statements where "all" is implied but only "some" is true).
On the other hand, Stewart proves that the perceived temperature change is not an actual temperature change at all, given that he'd be the most likely to notice it if it was. :cool:

I notice that the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule) gives the original legal meaning that "a stated exception implies the existence of a rule to which it is the exception" and quotes Fowler's Use of English:

Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11.00 p.m.; "The exception proves the rule" means that this special leave implies a rule requiring men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier. The value of this in interpreting statutes is plain.

[arthwollipot]

Rule 0: All rules have exceptions, including this one.

[psionl0]

I notice that the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule) gives the original legal meaning that "a stated exception implies the existence of a rule to which it is the exception" and quotes Fowler's Use of EnglishSo we have two alternative origins of the phrase "the exception proves the rule":
1) "The exception tests the rule"
2) "The exception proves the rule exists"

Neither "official" interpretation of the phrase is used when somebody is trying to dismiss exceptions to a rule.

[Hellbound]

So we have two alternative origins of the phrase "the exception proves the rule":
1) "The exception tests the rule"
2) "The exception proves the rule exists"

Neither "official" interpretation of the phrase is used when somebody is trying to dismiss exceptions to a rule.

Actually, I disagree. I think most people use it in the sense of number 2, even if they can't articulate it that well.

To take the OP's example:

1. Carl Sagan is thought to be exceptional for his non-cynical nature as an atheist.
2. Because him being non-cynical is thought to be exceptional, it proves that cynical is the "norm" or expected value.

Now, does this have anythign to do with reality? No, but it does speak to perception. A kind, gentle, non-cynical atheist is generally considered exceptional, but that's because most people have the perception of atheist=cynic, and doesn't speak to the truth of the statement, only to the "truth" of perception.

I hope that made sense :)

[Galteeth]

The problem with OP's formulation is the use of the word "all". Obviously, a single exception proves the "all" statement false.

What is generally meant by "exception that proves the rule" is that an exception to a generality is noteworthy because it seems exceptional or unusual, thus confirming the generality. I don't think this is part of formal logic, more of "common sense" observation.

To give an example: It is generally true that NFL quarterbacks are right handed. Someone might say, "Well, what about Steve Young, he was left-handed." The thing is, people remember that Steve Young was left handed precisely because it an unusual quality for NFL quarterbacks to have.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, I'd add that even the original latin quote does NOT say "tests the rule", when you look at the context. And it does have to do with law, actually.

The complete sentence is "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis". I.e., the exception proves the rule, in the cases not excepted. It's by Cicero in the defense of a friend whose accusers were pretty much trying to accuse him of doing something illegal, by virtue of a really inapplicable exception to what are the legal ways to obtain citizenship. Cicero was trying to say that if the law states an exception from some rule -- in that case, the rule of it being legal in the non-excepted cases -- then it means that the rule does apply to the cases not listed as exceptions.

We actually go by a similar but arguably even stronger principle, namely, "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius." I.e., "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another." This covers not only exceptions, but also situations, sub-classes of an action, or really whatever items on a list in a law. Unless the list is explicitly a non-exclusive one, e.g., because it is introduced by words like "including" or "such as", the fact that some things are listed in a law, is to be taken to mean that the lawmaker intended that to be the whole list.

It's not the only principle and is not set in stone, but basically you need to be able to base anything on other accepted principles, if it goes against this one.

It's probably even a good rule for the law, most of the time at least. You really don't want any judge to be able to arbitrarily add his own exceptions to a law, just because he likes or dislikes the accused. If for example a law about breaking and entering offers exemptions to cops with a warrant, firemen putting out a fire, and such, you don't want a judge to be able to just add a "and any guy wearing a ski mask" to it. The baseline assumption is that if the law has any situations, deeds, sub-cases, exceptions, etc, listed, and "a guy wearing a ski mask" isn't among them, then it probably wasn't intended to be.

Not saying that most judges would be that arbitrary anyway, but, generally, the whole process and principles intentionally leave very little room for being arbitrary about it, because that's how the rule of the law is supposed to work. Someone doing something, or the lawyer they consult about it, has to be able to reasonably predict by applying the same principles if something is legal, illegal or actually open to interpretation. You don't want it to be a complete mystery until the judge decides to extend a law with his own arbitrary exceptions.

Which brings us back to the whole "the exception proves the rule" thing.

The actual meaning even for law is about exceptions LISTED from the start, not as an ad-hoc way to dismiss counter-examples. It's also really about the meaning and/or intent of a rule, rather than the validity of an observation.

What it actually says, if we were to extrapolate to non-legal things, is that basically if I were to say "all American presidents were warmongering idiots", it's actually a weaker statement than "all American presidents [b]except Obama[/i] were warmongering idiots". The presence of an exception in the latter form -- again, actually listed exception in the rule, not just counter-example dismissed ad-hoc -- means I'm not just doing a generalization, but actually put some thought (even if briefly) into who'd be an exception, came up with only Obama, and actually mean it that the rule applies to every single president except him.

But, of course, all that is completely irrelevant to how it's actually used by people who just try to dismiss counter-examples.

[psionl0]

The problem with OP's formulation is the use of the word "all". Obviously, a single exception proves the "all" statement false.That's what this thread is all about.

If one were to adopt a more moderate position by saying things such as "it is generally true that ..." then exceptions wouldn't prove the proposition false (they still wouldn't prove the proposition true).

However, the OP is referring to those people who take a more extreme position and refuse to back down when exceptions to their position are pointed out. Instead, they resort to cliches like "exceptions prove the rule" to try and kill the debate. That might not have been the way the expression was originally used but it is almost certainly always used that way today.

[Galteeth]

That's what this thread is all about.

If one were to adopt a more moderate position by saying things such as "it is generally true that ..." then exceptions wouldn't prove the proposition false (they still wouldn't prove the proposition true).

However, the OP is referring to those people who take a more extreme position and refuse to back down when exceptions to their position are pointed out. Instead, they resort to cliches like "exceptions prove the rule" to try and kill the debate. That might not have been the way the expression was originally used but it is almost certainly always used that way today.

It seems such people would lack a basic understanding of the english language. I don't think I've ever heard this particular expression ("all" proved by an exception) in real life.

[Psi Baba]

Actually, I disagree. I think most people use it in the sense of number 2, even if they can't articulate it that well.

To take the OP's example:

1. Carl Sagan is thought to be exceptional for his non-cynical nature as an atheist.
2. Because him being non-cynical is thought to be exceptional, it proves that cynical is the "norm" or expected value.

Now, does this have anythign to do with reality? No, but it does speak to perception. A kind, gentle, non-cynical atheist is generally considered exceptional, but that's because most people have the perception of atheist=cynic, and doesn't speak to the truth of the statement, only to the "truth" of perception.

I hope that made sense :)
This is best explanation right here. Often a person or thing will be described or labeled with some sort of qualifier that suggests that it is somehow unusual or out of the ordinary and therefore implying a rule or, more accurately, a perceived generalization. If someone speaks of a 3-wheeled car and that car is always described as a "3-wheeled car" and never as just a car, then the implication is that cars in general likely have 4 wheels. If a qualifier is necessary to describe something in order to make it understood that the thing being described does not fit the norm, then by that alone one can infer what the rule must be. But the important point to remember, as Hellbound has pointed out, is that the whole concept is not logical but anecdotal.

[psionl0]

I don't think I've ever heard this particular expression ("all" proved by an exception) in real life.I don't think anybody has used this on me either. It is not a particularly intelligent response and if somebody did try it on me I would probably call him a ****head.

However, there are people who try this formula on and they have obviously used it against the OP which is why the OP called for ideas on how to deal with it.

[Kopji]

All sounds better than just saying they are wrongitty wrong wrong, which they are.

[qayak]

So sometimes I come across a stereotypical statement such as "all atheists are cynics" or something similar. I then respond with "what about Sagan" and other examples. I then get the fallacy "Well they're the exception that proves the rule". In your experience, what is the best way to respond to this?

Ironically, you can use Sagan's own words to rebut this fallacy.

Originally, the saying was probably not "The exception proves the rule" as is so commonly used now. The saying was more likely "The exception proofs the rule." "Proofs" in this sense means "to test" as has already been pointed out. Think of it like alcohol. You have 80 proof (40% alcohol), 100 proof (50% alcohol), 150 proof (75% alcohol), etc.

And any military will take their weapons to a "proving ground" to be tested.

The alcohol example is the one Sagan used in one of his books. (TDHW I believe.) Anyway, the point he was making was that if there is an exception to the rule, the rule is wrong.

So when someone says that Sagan is the exception that proves the rule, you can say that Sagan agreed, the rule is wrong and should no longer be used.

[Delvo]

I look at the phrase, at least in its modern common usage, as a precaution against confirmation bias: a reminder to be aware that it's possible that the reason you noticed something is not because it's common but because it's uncommon. The catch is just that it isn't always applicable; sometimes you really DO notice typical normal examples of common things, not just things that stand out, and sometimes an idea that could be mistaken for a case of confirmation bias is RIGHT.