When you have a case rare enough that you can only find one example for a paper, that is the very definition of an exception to the rule.
While cartoonericroberts' point was not perfect in the making, it is sound in principle. One exception is not enough to justify re-writing the rules, or doing away with them entirely.
It's not a rejection of the rules, it's a recognition of a boundary conditions. If you don't accept that boundary conditions exist, your system just simply stops applying outside the basic points, and can't be used to explain anything out on the edges of it's analysis.
All models have boundary conditions and you do have to recognize them and deal with them. That's why you create small abstract categories for the extremes.
One of the many unfortunate symptoms of this battle between those who seek to destroy all semblance of the natural order and those who wish to be free from the new one the others would create is the total erasure of nuance, and with it, truth.
Then should we alter all of society to cater to one singular person's existence?
There are more people who are allergic to sunlight, than fall within your vaunted exception. Why do we not tear down all of society to please them? There are more people who have a phobia of heights AND who get vertigo. Why do we build skyrisers instead of catering to THEM?
Because a couple people don't justify overthrowing societal norms. An exception exists... Sure. There's women who think rape is sexy and hot (like that loon on CNN during the Cavanaugh hearings). Should we normalize rape to make them more comfortable? An exception, an oddity, an outlier, is no rational basis for making society-shaping decisions.
When you have a case rare enough that you can only find one example for a paper, that is the very definition of an exception to the rule.
While cartoonericroberts' point was not perfect in the making, it is sound in principle. One exception is not enough to justify re-writing the rules, or doing away with them entirely.
It's not a rejection of the rules, it's a recognition of a boundary conditions. If you don't accept that boundary conditions exist, your system just simply stops applying outside the basic points, and can't be used to explain anything out on the edges of it's analysis.
All models have boundary conditions and you do have to recognize them and deal with them. That's why you create small abstract categories for the extremes.
One of the many unfortunate symptoms of this battle between those who seek to destroy all semblance of the natural order and those who wish to be free from the new one the others would create is the total erasure of nuance, and with it, truth.
Then should we alter all of society to cater to one singular person's existence?
There are more people who are allergic to sunlight, than fall within your vaunted exception. Why do we not tear down all of society to please them? There are more people who have a phobia of heights AND who get vertigo. Why do we build skyrisers instead of catering to THEM?
Because a couple people don't justify overthrowing societal norms. An exception exists... Sure. There's women who think rape is sexy and hot (like that loon on CNN during the Cavanaugh hearings). Should we normalize rape to make them more comfortable? An exception, an oddity, an outlier, is no rational basis for making society-shaping decisions.
No. If you normalize rape, it wouldn't be sexy and hot anymore.