Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA17052 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 19 May 2000 23:21:28 +0100 Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:19:46 -0700 From: Bill Spight <bspight@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Technology vs. culture To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Message-id: <3925BE02.4F13FAE8@pacbell.net> Organization: Saybrook Graduate School X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-PBI-NC404 (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: ja,en References: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJOEHKENAA.richard@brodietech.com> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Dear Richard,
> Exceptions don't prove rules.
> They DISprove rules, don't they? I've heard this phrase used before and
> never understood what it could mean.
It's a good example of meme mutation.
"Prove" and "probe" are cognates. An exception probes the rule,
it tests it. The meaning of the phrase has altered over time.
Nowadays it is used as a defense of a general proposition (the
rule). Just because a generalization has exceptions does not
disprove it. You expect exceptions to general rules. In fact, if
there were no general rule, the exception would not be an
exception. By a process the name of which escapes me at the
moment, "prove" stands in for "does not disprove." But the normal
usage is stronger than just,
"Well, that's an exception. So what?" People actually do seem to
say that the exception bolsters the rule.
Best,
Bill
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 19 2000 - 23:21:57 BST