design: be relevant to science

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents cost
Weight: 0.64
, industry
Weight: 0.63
, approach
Weight: 0.63
, layout
Weight: 0.62
Siblings architect
Weight: 0.71
, design pattern
Weight: 0.69
, prototype
Weight: 0.63
, chevron
Weight: 0.62
, logo
Weight: 0.62

Related properties

Property Similarity
be relevant to science 1.00
be relevant to social science 0.96
is relevant 0.91
use science 0.85
use science in life 0.82
be more relevant than costs 0.78
use science in daily life 0.77
be more relevant than costs in short-term decision making 0.76
be more relevant than costs in decision making 0.76
be important in economics 0.75

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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(cost, be important in economics) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(design, be relevant to science)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(cost, be important in economics)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(cost, be important in economics)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(architect, use science in daily life)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(architect, use science)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(cost, be important in economics) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(design, be relevant to science)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(architect, use science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(architect, use science)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(architect, use science in daily life) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(architect, use science in daily life)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(design, be relevant to science)

Similarity expansion

0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(design, be relevant to social science)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Typical(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(design, be relevant to social science)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Plausible(design, be relevant to social science)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Salient(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(design, be relevant to social science)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Salient(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(design, be relevant to science)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(design, be relevant to science)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.13
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(cost, be important in economics)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(architect, use science)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(architect, use science in daily life)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.14
Typical(design, be relevant to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(cost, be important in economics)