The Existence of Rules

Abstract

About b) 1. and 2. nothing much needs to be said. Statements of this form are clearly empirical statements, and they are clearly general statements. That is the force, in both cases, of 'as a rule'. Clearly too, they contextually imply, whether or not they logically imply, that there are counter-instances, that 'as a rule' could be replaced without a change in truth-value by 'usually' but not by 'always'. The question whether or not 'as a rule' logically implies counter-instances is the question whether, e.g. 'As a rule, I shave before breakfast' and 'I always shave before breakfast' are or are not logically contrary to each other-on the assumption, of course, that 'I always shave before breakfast' logically implies that I never do not shave before breakfast. Some people would want to say that it did not. In that case 'As a rule I . . . .' and 'I always ....' would not necessarily be contraries. It would all