tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post7025583104989767323..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Misusing Old Phrasesgcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-59607398850315324022012-05-18T14:07:21.625-04:002012-05-18T14:07:21.625-04:00Well, I suppose if Popper had invented the idea of...Well, I suppose if Popper had invented the idea of falsification, or was the first to point out its importance, then this might make me a Popperian. Here, for instance, is Robert Boyle from the 1600s:<br /><br />"a thousand experiments or observations made to confirm a theory do not have the force of one made to prove the contrary"<br /><br />The fact that you keep ignoring this, which I am now pointing out for like the fourth time, makes me Boyling mad!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-59388515987348778522012-05-18T14:04:38.163-04:002012-05-18T14:04:38.163-04:00Huff and traumerei, initial research seems to back...Huff and traumerei, initial research seems to back your take on this phrase. I was told the other explanation by someone who sounded like they knew what they were talking about, and "prove" did have such a meaning once, but Wikipedia supports the legal origin of the phrase.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-3988839967885292492012-05-18T08:51:26.696-04:002012-05-18T08:51:26.696-04:00Of course we all know the exceptions to rules don&...<i>Of course we all know the exceptions to rules don't "prove" them; exceptions disprove rules!</i><br /><br />Gene Callahan, Popperian.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-7626043185639085042012-05-18T00:22:48.110-04:002012-05-18T00:22:48.110-04:00I did not know that.
Stanley Kubrick's movie ...I did not know that.<br /><br />Stanley Kubrick's movie Paths of Glory really used that quote out of context, in reference to a commander criticising French soldiers being ordered to "patriotically" conduct a suicide charge against Germans.Prateekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15287835907015065883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-28425286048036458622012-05-17T20:09:32.766-04:002012-05-17T20:09:32.766-04:00I always thought the "exception that proves t...I always thought the "exception that proves the rule" meant that it indicated the existence of a general rule. <br /><br />A "No Parking between 3-6PM" indicates that you can park there at the other hours. But that's just my modern interpretation. Any historical examples?traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-16987438156754904512012-05-17T14:55:56.999-04:002012-05-17T14:55:56.999-04:00In legal contexts, exceptions often do prove rules...In legal contexts, exceptions often do prove rules. For example, "Customers may not smoke here on Sundays" is evidence of a <i>general</i> rule that customers <i>can</i> smoke there (i.e., smoking is allowed on every day of the week but Sunday). Hence the legal maxim, <i>exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis</i>.<br /><br />In statutes, an exception to an ambiguous rule can demonstrate that certain readings aren't viable (as they would make the exception superfluous).PHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12011728672116977010noreply@blogger.com