Hi Mick,
Where did this come from? It certainly doesn't follow from premises 1 and 2. I know it is a folk saying, but that doesn't really count much in its favour.
Me: Premises may or may not be dependent of each other. Only that the conlusion has to LOgically follow from the Truthful premises. Back to Logic 101. Even the premises that I gave are related to each other. There are premises nos 1 & 2 and exceptions to these rule is(premise 3)
In logical terms, you are saying:
"For every thing that invariably obeys a rule, there is a thing that does not follow the rule...Well, okay, I might challenge your view of what a rule is! If a rule is necessarily disobeyed, then it is not a rule, in my understanding of the term. A rule must be obeyed, otherwise it is not a rule. It is merely a convention.
You are correct re. 1st part. But on 2nd part, I think you are wrong. Just because a rule has exceptions, doesn't mean it is not a rule. Example. Everyone must stop on red light. That is the rule. Certainly it has EXCEPTIONS. Ambulance, police cars. Got it?
Kind regards,
Gov Pilate of Judea,
twin brother of Judas :=) :=)
™ Version 4.2
