conservation: be important from scientific perspective

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents program
Weight: 0.62
, topic
Weight: 0.60
, strategy
Weight: 0.59
, concept
Weight: 0.59
, issue
Weight: 0.58
Siblings biodiversity
Weight: 0.34
, ecology
Weight: 0.34
, wildlife
Weight: 0.34
, recycling
Weight: 0.33
, animal husbandry
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be important from scientific perspective 1.00
be important from perspective 0.92
be important from ethical perspective 0.90
be important from quality of life perspective 0.90
be important to science 0.81
is practical science 0.80
be important to environmental science 0.77
is holistic science 0.77
be related to science 0.76
be described as holistic science 0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Necessity Sufficiency Implication Entailment Contradiction Entropy

Evidence

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Clauses

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(ecology, is practical science)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(ecology, is holistic science)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be important to science)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be described as holistic science)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be described as holistic science)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be related to science)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be important to environmental science)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(ecology, be important to science)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(ecology, be important to science)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(ecology, be important to environmental science)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(ecology, be important to environmental science)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(ecology, be related to science)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(ecology, be related to science)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(ecology, be described as holistic science)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(ecology, be described as holistic science)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(ecology, be described as holistic science)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(ecology, be described as holistic science)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(ecology, is holistic science)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(ecology, is holistic science)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(ecology, is practical science)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Plausible(ecology, is practical science)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from perspective)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from ethical perspective)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from perspective)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from perspective)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from ethical perspective)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from perspective)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from ethical perspective)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from ethical perspective)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(ecology, be described as holistic science)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(ecology, be described as holistic science)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(ecology, be important to environmental science)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(ecology, is holistic science)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(ecology, be related to science)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(ecology, be important to science)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(ecology, is practical science)