The phrase "exception that proves the rule" refers to an apparent exception to the rule's outputs actually being explained by it having divergent inputs, i.e. if you claim P=>Q, then the exception that proves the rule would be an instance of ~Q=>~P.

What's different about computers that makes this applicable here?

▲

Negitivefrags 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is not what the “exception that proves the rule” means.

If a sign says “No parking on saturdays”, that is an exception that can be used to infer the rule “parking here is okay the rest of the time”.

▲

nkrisc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What they likely mean is that pointing to one exception that is notable only because it violates the general trend is not evidence against the trend.

▲

vidarh 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The term is often also used simply as claiming the existence of a rule by claiming the exception.

It's one of those terms where I am pretty confident that I see the original use more rarely than the technically incorrect variations to the point I'd hesitate to call them incorrect any more.

▲

vlovich123 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> This meaning of the phrase, which for Fowler is the original and clearest meaning ... This argument states if an exception exists or has to be stated, then this exception proves that there must be some rule to which the case is an exception

So no, OP used the correct definition and no wide spread usage uses ~Q=>~P. That's a weird logical formulation that was randomly concocted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

Said another way:

Rule: It's hard to find a product that hasn't gotten worse or more expensive, even adjusted for inflation.

Exception: computers i think are more affordable now than even 20 years ago, in bang for buck

This proves the rule because if it's an exception to the rule, therefore the rule must exist in the first place.

	▲	vidarh 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That argument only works if someone states the exception from the start, not when someone makes the claim while using the term.