# Sturgeon's Law: "Nothing is always absolutely so" - huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 7, 2008, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431 "2008-05-07T14:36:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![fighting\_ignorant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ac8455/32.png) [@fighting\_ignorant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fighting_ignorant)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/1 "2008-05-07T14:36:57Z")
According to wikipedia there are 2 versions of Sturgeon’s Law; the well-known and easily understood “90% of everything is crap”, and the lesser-known and (to me) confusing statement, “Nothing is always absolutely so”. I don’t really know what to make of that second one. How do you even parse that sentence? What does it mean? Dopers, shed some light! ---
**Author:** ![Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speaker_for_the_Dead)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/2 "2008-05-07T14:40:23Z")
I read it as “nothing can be described perfectly, since things (a) change and (b) have more than one facet.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/3 "2008-05-07T14:47:49Z")
“There are no absolutes” - for example, if I say, “every Buick is a heap of junk” someone is bound to come along with a Buick that’s done 650,000 miles. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/4 "2008-05-07T14:47:55Z")
I don’t think they’re supposed to be versions of the same law. They’re obviously different Sturgeon’s Laws. Therre must be a third one somewhere, because “Laws Come in Sets of Three”. That’s known as **CalMeacham’s Third Law**. ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/5 "2008-05-07T14:49:51Z")
So what are CalMeacham’s 1st & 2nd Laws? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/6 "2008-05-07T15:09:13Z")
> [@](#): > > So what are CalMeacham’s 1st & 2nd Laws? They will be made known in time. But they must exist, by CalMeacham’s Third Law. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/7 "2008-05-07T15:16:11Z")
Isn’t that Opal’s Law? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/8 "2008-05-07T15:21:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Isn’t that Opal’s Law? No, Opal was making a comment about the propriety of making lists with fewer than three items. She wasn’t making a meta-law about laws. My formulation (which I’ve been using for years, although calling it by my real name, rather than my _nom de SDMB_, results from years of observing that Great Men have Laws in Sets of Three – Newton’s Three Laws, Kepler’s Three Laws, The Three Laws of Thermodynamics, Euler’s Three Laws, Clarke’s Three Laws, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/9 "2008-05-07T15:58:28Z")
“Nothing is always absolutely so”. There’s no wiggle room on _always_ or _absolutely_. I have looked at “Nothing is … so” from several angles and hammered on it a bit, and I can see two meanings. One of these is useless, and the other is cynical. The state of not being anything will forever, without variation, be just that. (in which so substitutes for the earlier nothing.) No thing will ever be completely true. (where so means true.) **The law applies to itself, so it is not always completely true.** ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/10 "2008-05-07T16:22:12Z")
[QUOTE=AskNott] **The law applies to itself, so it is not always completely true.** [/QUOTE] But, if it is itself not always completely true, then doesn’t that make it always completely true? Now, listen carefully, Norman: _I am lying_. ---
**Author:** ![Rocketeer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocketeer/32/4437_2.png) [@Rocketeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rocketeer)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/11 "2008-05-07T17:42:22Z")
I like **Meacham’s Third Law** a lot, and I plan to quote it often. 🙂 So now I have three laws that I quote often: Murphy’s, Sturgeon’s, and now Meacham’s. Strange and wonderful, how that turned out so well. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/12 "2008-05-07T20:12:54Z")
[QUOTE=CalMeacham] No, Opal was making a comment about the propriety of making lists with fewer than three items. She wasn’t making a meta-law about laws. My formulation (which I’ve been using for years, although calling it by my real name, rather than my _nom de SDMB_, results from years of observing that Great Men have Laws in Sets of Three – Newton’s Three Laws, Kepler’s Three Laws, The Three Laws of Thermodynamics, Euler’s Three Laws, Clarke’s Three Laws, and so on. [/QUOTE] What’s Thermodynamics first name? And don’t you know there are at least four laws, the zeroth, the first, the second and the third? ---
**Author:** ![Rocketeer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocketeer/32/4437_2.png) [@Rocketeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rocketeer)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/13 "2008-05-07T20:14:45Z")
Hiram. Hiram Thermodynamics. And the Zeroth doesn’t count, because its number is zero, and zero added to three is still three. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/14 "2008-05-07T20:15:51Z")
[QUOTE=KneadToKnow] But, if it is itself not always completely true, then doesn’t that make it always completely true? Now, listen carefully, Norman: _I am lying_. [/QUOTE] You are perhaps of the body! ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/15 "2008-05-07T20:17:54Z")
> [@](#): > > What’s Thermodynamics first name? And don’t you know there are at least four laws, the zeroth, the first, the second and the third? His first name is Ed. And I forgot Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics ---
**Author:** ![Plynck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Plynck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plynck)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/16 "2008-05-07T20:35:38Z")
[QUOTE=AskNott] “Nothing is always absolutely so”. There’s no wiggle room on _always_ or _absolutely_. I have looked at “Nothing is … so” from several angles and hammered on it a bit, and I can see two meanings. One of these is useless, and the other is cynical. The state of not being anything will forever, without variation, be just that. (in which so substitutes for the earlier nothing.) No thing will ever be completely true. (where so means true.) **The law applies to itself, so it is not always completely true.** [/QUOTE] Dude, you just blew my mind! Wow, I never noticed my hands were so big… ---
**Author:** ![Plynck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Plynck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plynck)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/17 "2008-05-07T20:37:05Z")
[QUOTE=CalMeacham] And I forgot Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics [/QUOTE] The first one is: “You don’t talk about Robotics.” ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/18 "2008-05-07T20:39:21Z")
Arthur C. Clarke, of course, **did** actually promulgate three laws – though the first two are obverse and reverse of the same broad concept. I. If a distinguished elderly scientist states without equivocation that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. II. If a distinguished elderly scientist states without equivocation that something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong. III. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2008, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/19 "2008-05-07T21:01:20Z")
I mentioned Clarke’s laws in my earlier post #8: > [@](#): > > My formulation (which I’ve been using for years, although calling it by my real name, rather than my nom de SDMB, results from years of observing that Great Men have Laws in Sets of Three – Newton’s Three Laws, Kepler’s Three Laws, The Three Laws of Thermodynamics, Euler’s Three Laws, **Clarke’s Three Laws** , and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2008, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431/20 "2008-05-08T01:04:33Z")
Larry Niven has [twenty.](http://www.larryniven.org/stories/nivens_laws_2002.shtml) And as S.M. Stirling wrote: > [@](#): > > And a special acknowledgment to author of Niven’s Law: “There is a technical term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is ‘idiot.’” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sturgeons-law-nothing-is-always-absolutely-so-huh/448431.md?page=2)