"There is always an exception ... except in this case."

[thedragon232]

A while back when I first learned of paradoxes I though of the statement, "There is always an exception ... except in this case." The paradox being that the statement of there always being exceptions has no exceptions which is also its own exception. But as I get older I feel that there is some truth to this statement. Does anyone else agree?

 

[TheIceQueen]

As a student of psychology, I'd have to agree with this statement. There's always the potential for that one little outlier, that one participant or subject that can completely throw a wrench in even the most well-designed of experiments. That's why case studies, which do have their uses, can't really be generalized based on their information only.

Still a silly statement to wrap your mind around.

 

[lacktheknack]

It feels like a self-actualizing statement, really.

To avoid exploding nearby robots, though, I'd just say "there's always an exception" and let the magnificent human brain fill in its own gaps.

 

[TheIceQueen]

As a student of psychology, I'd have to agree with this statement. There's always the potential for that one little outlier, that one participant or subject that can completely throw a wrench in even the most well-designed of experiments. That's why case studies, which do have their uses, can't really be generalized based on their information only.

Still a silly statement to wrap your mind around.

Well as a psychology student you might say it applies to psychology currently.

But I'm pretty sure a well formulated rule could have no exceptions.

Personally I quite dislike the statement that there's always an exception because it does not seem to be a statement based on reasoning out the truth and determining that there is a good reason to think there always must be.

It also applies to science in general.

Any well-formulated rule could always have an exception because that's how things work in science. Even if all of the information we have now suggests towards something being right, there could always be new information that springs forward that either completely disregards the rule or has it so that the rule needs to be adapted, which is how theories work. In either case, that well-formulated rule just wasn't well-formulated enough and most rules simply never will be.

 

[thedragon232]

Personally I quite dislike the statement that there's always an exception because it does not seem to be a statement based on reasoning out the truth and determining that there is a good reason to think there always must be.

I feel that the greatest support for this comes from things such as double standards, loop-holes, favoritism, and others that are caused by human nature. Its that people allow this to be true is its reason for being.

 

[TheIceQueen]

As a student of psychology, I'd have to agree with this statement. There's always the potential for that one little outlier, that one participant or subject that can completely throw a wrench in even the most well-designed of experiments. That's why case studies, which do have their uses, can't really be generalized based on their information only.

Still a silly statement to wrap your mind around.

Well as a psychology student you might say it applies to psychology currently.

But I'm pretty sure a well formulated rule could have no exceptions.

Personally I quite dislike the statement that there's always an exception because it does not seem to be a statement based on reasoning out the truth and determining that there is a good reason to think there always must be.

It also applies to science in general.

Any well-formulated rule could always have an exception because that's how things work in science. Even if all of the information we have now suggests towards something being right, there could always be new information that springs forward that either completely disregards the rule or has it so that the rule needs to be adapted, which is how theories work. In either case, that well-formulated rule just wasn't well-formulated enough and most rules simply never will be.

That assumes insufficient knowledge. This does not mean that there must always be an exception. It says that without sufficient knowledge there may be exceptions.

Part of it is that I'm not viewing the statement so absolutely as you. It's clear that you're taking the always as to literally mean always, whereas I do not. Even if it's only a may (and there'll always be a may because we'll always have insufficient knowledge), it's great to assume that something out there will prove you wrong or that there's an exception that can ruin your data.

In essence, I believe our disagreement is that you're taking the statement at it's absolute meaning, which is fair given it's an absolutist statement, but I'm not taking the statement like that. Always and may aren't the same thing, but it's great to assume that may just maybe might be always. It helps you recognize limitations.

Chalk it up to a difference of perspective.

 

[TheIceQueen]

As a student of psychology, I'd have to agree with this statement. There's always the potential for that one little outlier, that one participant or subject that can completely throw a wrench in even the most well-designed of experiments. That's why case studies, which do have their uses, can't really be generalized based on their information only.

Still a silly statement to wrap your mind around.

Well as a psychology student you might say it applies to psychology currently.

But I'm pretty sure a well formulated rule could have no exceptions.

Personally I quite dislike the statement that there's always an exception because it does not seem to be a statement based on reasoning out the truth and determining that there is a good reason to think there always must be.

It also applies to science in general.

Any well-formulated rule could always have an exception because that's how things work in science. Even if all of the information we have now suggests towards something being right, there could always be new information that springs forward that either completely disregards the rule or has it so that the rule needs to be adapted, which is how theories work. In either case, that well-formulated rule just wasn't well-formulated enough and most rules simply never will be.

That assumes insufficient knowledge. This does not mean that there must always be an exception. It says that without sufficient knowledge there may be exceptions.

Part of it is that I'm not viewing the statement so absolutely as you. It's clear that you're taking the always as to literally mean always, whereas I do not. Even if it's only a may (and there'll always be a may because we'll always have insufficient knowledge), it's great to assume that something out there will prove you wrong or that there's an exception that can ruin your data.

In essence, I believe our disagreement is that you're taking the statement at it's absolute meaning, which is fair given it's an absolutist statement, but I'm not taking the statement like that. Always and may aren't the same thing, but it's great to assume that may just maybe might be always. It helps you recognize limitations.

Chalk it up to a difference of perspective.

Well I didn't really see it that way because I think that exceptions can exist is a given

This is quickly becoming like some roleplays where one person gives a lot, but then the other person gives one or two lines that are usually vague at best and don't quite explain their thoughts or actions out, so I'm flying the coop from this debate as it's just not worth it.

It was kind of interesting while it lasted. Sad to see it become so disappointing.

 

[TWRule]

A while back when I first learned of paradoxes I though of the statement, "There is always an exception ... except in this case." The paradox being that the statement of there always being exceptions has no exceptions which is also its own exception. But as I get older I feel that there is some truth to this statement. Does anyone else agree?

You seem to be under the impression that paradoxical statements can't mean something coherent?

I assure you, that is far from the case - ordinary language makes use of paradoxes all the time in ways that don't impede meaning; even if you insisted on strict logical truth-evaluation, there are well-known ways to deal with paradoxes like this.

For example - you can separate this statement into 1st and 2nd order evaluations. "There is always an exception, except in this case" can mean "There is one case where no exception is permitted, while in all others they are." The first order evaluation establishes the principle "there is always an exception", while the second order evaluation, treated separately, is a comment about the first order principle, establishing a proviso (namely, that there is one particular case that it does not apply - whether one insisted that "this case" meant "the case of the first order principle" is irrelevant). In that way, there is no logical conflict.

I apologize if you didn't mean to focus on the paradox and instead had something else in mind...

Edit: As a poster below me pointed out, and I agree with but didn't explicitly say - logical truth evaluation is something totally different from saying "I feel there is some truth to this."

 

[wulf3n]

I guess it depends on wether or not you believe the premise "there is always an exception". To me exceptions arise due to lack of information or poor definition, given absolute knowledge or definition no exception can exist.

I do like paradoxes though. One of my favourites being "Could an omnipotent being heat a burrito so hot that they themselves could not eat it?"

 

[Tanakh]

A while back when I first learned of paradoxes I though of the statement, "There is always an exception ... except in this case." The paradox being that the statement of there always being exceptions has no exceptions which is also its own exception. But as I get older I feel that there is some truth to this statement. Does anyone else agree?

Hello, you seem to be using a popular version of self-referencing paradoxes, in specific of Russell's paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox ). If you want to see other articles with little math about it, I would suggest the wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox ).

BTW, there is no "TRUTH" in your statement in a logical sense, since it is not even well formulated in the logical sense. However you are of course free to "feel there is some truth" in anything.

If you have further questions about it's math aspect, feel free to ask, I am rusty and logic was never my forte but will do my best to answer (even if it takes me a bit, my work schedules are weird).

 

[Exterminas]

The always-part within "There is always an exception" has to be taken with a grain of salt. It is propably exaggeration since "There is always an exception, expect when there is not!", doesn't sound as witty and wise.

Basic Mathmatics for example, does not have exceptions: Two plus two is always four within conventional mathematics.