ecology: be considered hierarchical science

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents science
Weight: 0.65
, project
Weight: 0.60
, issue
Weight: 0.60
, subject
Weight: 0.58
, thing
Weight: 0.58
Siblings biology
Weight: 0.36
, computer science
Weight: 0.36
, meteorology
Weight: 0.35
, biodiversity
Weight: 0.34
, agriculture
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
be considered hierarchical science 1.00
be considered science 0.78
be considered interdisciplinary science 0.77

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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(agriculture, be considered science)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(biology, be considered science)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(computer science, be considered science)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(computer science, be considered science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(computer science, be considered science)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(biology, be considered science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(biology, be considered science)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
Remarkable(agriculture, be considered science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(agriculture, be considered science)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Salient(ecology, be considered hierarchical science)

Similarity expansion

0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(ecology, be considered science)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(ecology, be considered interdisciplinary science)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(ecology, be considered science)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(ecology, be considered interdisciplinary science)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.27
Salient(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(ecology, be considered interdisciplinary science)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.27
Salient(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(ecology, be considered science)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.25
Remarkable(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be considered interdisciplinary science)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.25
Remarkable(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be considered science)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.27
Salient(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be considered hierarchical science)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(ecology, be considered hierarchical science)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(computer science, be considered science)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(biology, be considered science)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(ecology, be considered hierarchical science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(agriculture, be considered science)