Skip to main content
Heuristics

Sturgeon's Law

Sturgeon’s Law says that most work in any field is mediocre. Dennett draws a rule for fair criticism from this deliberately sweeping maxim: address a field’s strongest examples rather than treating its worst work as representative.

THE IDEA

4. STURGEON’S LAW

The science-fiction author Ted Sturgeon, speaking at the World Science Fiction Convention in Philadelphia in September 1953, said,

When people talk about the mystery novel, they mention The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep. When they talk about the western, they say there’s The Way West and Shane. But when they talk about science fiction, they call it “that Buck Rogers stuff,” and they say “ninety percent of science fiction is crud.” Well, they’re right. Ninety percent of science fiction is crud. But then ninety percent of everything is crud, and it’s the ten percent that isn’t crud that is important, and the ten percent of science fiction that isn’t crud is as good as or better than anything being written anywhere.

Sturgeon’s Law is usually put a little less decorously: Ninety percent of everything is crap. Ninety percent of experiments in molecular biology, 90 percent of poetry, 90 percent of philosophy books, 90 percent of peer-reviewed articles in mathematics—and so forth—is crap. Is that true? Well, maybe it’s an exaggeration, but let’s agree that there is a lot of mediocre work done in every field. (Some curmudgeons say it’s more like 99 percent, but let’s not get into that game.) A good moral to draw from this observation is that when you want to criticize a field, a genre, a discipline, an art form, . . . don’t waste your time and ours hooting at the crap! Go after the good stuff, or leave it alone. This advice is often ignored by ideologues intent on destroying the reputation of analytic philosophy, evolutionary psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, macroeconomics, plastic surgery, improvisational theater, television sitcoms, philosophical theology, massage therapy, you name it. Let’s stipulate at the outset that there is a great deal of deplorable, stupid, second-rate stuff out there, of all sorts. Now, in order not to waste your time and try our patience, make sure you concentrate on the best stuff you can find, the flagship examples extolled by the leaders of the field, the prize-winning entries, not the dregs. Notice that this is closely related to Rapoport’s Rules: unless you are a comedian whose main purpose is to make people laugh at ludicrous buffoonery, spare us the caricature. This is particularly true, I find, when the target is philosophers. The very best theories and analyses of any philosopher, from the greatest, most perceptive sages of ancient Greece to the intellectual heroes of the recent past (Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Dewey, Jean Paul Sartre—to name four very different thinkers), can be made to look like utter idiocy—or tedious nitpicking—with a few deft tweaks. Yuck, yuck. Don’t do it. The only one you’ll discredit is yourself.

When to use it

  • When evaluating a new academic field, read the top peer-reviewed articles before forming an opinion.

  • Distinguishing criticism of an entire product category from criticism of a defective example; when choosing a particular product, examining its strengths and reported problems.

  • When debating controversial topics, address the strongest arguments from the opposing side, not the weakest.

  • In learning a new skill, study the masters before looking at average practitioners.

FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE

In practice

01

Criticism of science fiction

When people criticize science fiction as 'that Buck Rogers stuff', they focus on the 90% that is crud, ignoring the 10% that is exceptional. Sturgeon's Law reminds us that this is true of all fields, so we should evaluate the best examples.

02

Ideologues attacking a field

Ideologues intent on discrediting analytic philosophy, sociology, or other disciplines often select the worst examples (the 'crap') to represent the whole. Sturgeon's Law advises that to be fair and productive, one should instead address the flagship works prized by the field's leaders.

✳

A MOMENT TO REFLECT

Put it to work.

  1. Think of a field you tend to dismiss. Are you basing your opinion on the worst examples? How can you apply Sturgeon's Law to improve your assessment?

  2. When you encounter criticism of a discipline, does the critic focus on high-quality or low-quality work? How does that affect your perception of the field?

  3. When criticizing work in your own field, which examples would its strongest defenders consider worth addressing?

Connected ideas

Another lens can bring the same problem into focus.

References

  1. Sturgeon's Law (original statement) — Theodore Sturgeon (1953)

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION

Source texts

  • Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking
← More heuristics