Citing Sturgeon's Law - while the amiable thing to do, charitably offering to resolve the dispute in a general cloud of "we should all improve" - seems a bit like a cop out.

Making a claim such as "90% of philosophy should be thrown out for rationality reasons" (assuming that quote isn't a strawman) singles out philosophy. Defending that using Sturgeon's Law - which in your estimation applies to various fields, if to differing extents - portrays your posts retrospectively in a much more generic and thus less hard hitting and less aimed critique of the current modus operandi of science. Did you really mean to quiet your thunder thus, when you started like Prometheus?

So while you technically can cite Sturgeon's Law as predicting/explaining your stance, it goes against the spirit of dealing with philosophy specifically.