Comment by Ozarkian
Comment by Ozarkian 10 months ago
I would have assumed he was a UNIX system administrator. Everybody knows that only guys with enormous beards can properly tame a UNIX system.
Comment by Ozarkian 10 months ago
I would have assumed he was a UNIX system administrator. Everybody knows that only guys with enormous beards can properly tame a UNIX system.
Because the phrase has always bothered me: this means something other than what it's commonly understood to nowadays.
An older use of the word "prove", as in to test, means it says "that's an exception that tests the rule, and finds it is incorrect"
There is an alternate interpretation, that the existence of an explicit exception proves (confirms) the existence of a rule to which an exception can be made.
So the (existence of an) exception proves (the existence of) the rule.
That's what I always thought it meant. For example, if a sign says "No Parking 4-6 PM" that proves that parking is allowed there at all other times.
I agree in that the meaning of prove in that context is "put it to the test" but for me it doesn't go as far as finding the rule incorrect, because it's a general rule, not an absolute rule. A lot more exceptions would be necessary to make the rule incorrect for the general case.
I wouldn't be so sure, the same expression exists in French:
L'exception qui confirme la règle
And there's no ambiguity about it, the exception is confirming that the rule is true.
That's a stupid expression IMO, but I would be surprised if the English expression meant the exact contrary.
I’ve always used it to mean that I don’t care about your hypothetical edge case.
I always thought that the "rule" referred to is that "all rules have exceptions" (R1). i.e. there's a rule (in this case "only men with big beards can tame a unix system" (R2)) which, however, has an exception ("girls in dinosaur themeparks can also do so" (E1)). Therefore, the R1 is, once again, shown to be true.
Hmmm... self-referential vibes coming here. It might be that the only exception to the R1 is itself, but then... etc.
The phrase bothers me because it's often used to set up a cousin to the no true scotsman fallacy. If you can't find an exception, then it proves the nay-sayer right. If you CAN find an exception.... it still proves the naysayer right?!?
I wouldn't use the phrase outside of silly internet jokes about 90s popcorn flicks.
Cory Doctrow mentioned "one graybeard (literally -- he had a Unix beard of great rattiness and gravitas) who had no fewer than seven devices on his belt, including a line tester and a GPS."
And girls trapped in dinosaur theme parks, let's not forget