Who agrees with the idea that "the exception proves the rule" If so why? I never seen the logic. Maybe someone can help...?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The exception that proves the rule" is an exception to a generally accepted truth. This is an old fashioned use of the word 'prove', which means 'to test'. It does not mean that it demonstrates a rule to be true, but that it tests the rule. It is usually used these days when an exception to a rule has been identified: for example, Mutillidae are wasps without wings, and therefore are an exception that proves (tests) the rule that wasps fly.

"The exception [that] proves the rule" also means that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule). A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule."

I think I say that a lot, but it might or might not be true though.

Example:
In a classroom, there's a rule says you have to raise your hand in order to go the restroom. Then, there's a student who doesn't report to the teacher and just goes to the bathroom. Since, it's rule the teacher need to enforce it, and punish the student for doing so. If the student succeeds in going to bathroom without raising their hand and reporting, then the rest would follow as well. There wouldn't be such a rule. Because rules and culture are enforced, the exception might or might not succeed just because of an attempt. If it succeeds, it breaks the rule, and follows a new culture.

Exceptions in culture are difficult to succeed. It's the majority rule. There are enforcers, and exceptions often conforms to the culture or changes the whole culture.

that the occurrence of something that breaks the rule is so rare proves the rule was formulated accurately.

screw wikipedia. they interpret the past wrong.
even though this is the first time i've heard the phrase
(& i agree with it).

First you need to understand an idea called an outlier. In statistical studies some data is determined to be something like static, errors or random oddities or the nexus of conflict between two data sets. Outliers are generally filtered out, but statistics WITHOUT outliers are probably fake.

Thus the presence of a minute amount of conflicting data INDICATES accuracy and credibility and thus the "rule" (determined result) without an outlier (exception) is deemed false.

So the reason you are hung up on this is you don't understand it.