Is there a presumption of perfect knowledge when making the rule?
No. Of course not.
If you learn something new, or encounter some new situation, that makes some existing rule no longer make sense—you discard that rule, and make a new rule. This is no different from encountering a “legitimate exception”.
… how do we know we have clearly defined or perceived all the possible setting the rule might seem to apply
We don’t. We try our best, but we have no guarantees. That is life.
This is, in fact, the point of all that stuff about discarding and re-formulating rules when you encounter “exceptions”, periodically auditing your rules, etc. It is a way—indeed, the only sane way—of dealing with imperfect knowledge, and the inevitability of surprises.
If you learn something new, or encounter some new situation, that makes some existing rule no longer make sense—you discard that rule, and make a new rule. This is no different from encountering a “legitimate exception”.
I think walking through that door puts us right back with the exception to every rule—which has always implied the exception was in fact legitimate.
Exceptions are a fiction. They’re a way for us to avoid admitting (sometimes to ourselves, sometimes to others) that the rule as stated, together with the criteria for deciding whether something is a “legitimate” exception, is the actual rule.
Requires that we already had the criteria for deciding if the as yet unknown exception arising from the know information was in fact well formed and able to deal with the unknown information.
If one wants to argue that rules are inherently context/informationlly bound and within those bounds we can define where the rule applies and where it does not I agree. But that seems a lot different than saying we can update rules as situations arise and some how that allows us to escape the trap or temptation of claiming “exception” to escape holding ourselves to the rule.
Requires that we already had the criteria for deciding if the as yet unknown exception arising from the know information was in fact well formed and able to deal with the unknown information.
No. It does not. Nothing that I wrote requires this.
No. Of course not.
If you learn something new, or encounter some new situation, that makes some existing rule no longer make sense—you discard that rule, and make a new rule. This is no different from encountering a “legitimate exception”.
We don’t. We try our best, but we have no guarantees. That is life.
This is, in fact, the point of all that stuff about discarding and re-formulating rules when you encounter “exceptions”, periodically auditing your rules, etc. It is a way—indeed, the only sane way—of dealing with imperfect knowledge, and the inevitability of surprises.
I think walking through that door puts us right back with the exception to every rule—which has always implied the exception was in fact legitimate.
Requires that we already had the criteria for deciding if the as yet unknown exception arising from the know information was in fact well formed and able to deal with the unknown information.
If one wants to argue that rules are inherently context/informationlly bound and within those bounds we can define where the rule applies and where it does not I agree. But that seems a lot different than saying we can update rules as situations arise and some how that allows us to escape the trap or temptation of claiming “exception” to escape holding ourselves to the rule.
No. It does not. Nothing that I wrote requires this.