engineer: apply physics constructing

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents scientist
Weight: 0.70
, expert
Weight: 0.65
, contractor
Weight: 0.65
, construction worker
Weight: 0.65
, employee
Weight: 0.65
Siblings physicist
Weight: 0.57
, james watt
Weight: 0.54
, geologist
Weight: 0.37
, architect
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
apply physics constructing 1.00
use science 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(architect, use science)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(physicist, use science)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(physicist, use science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(physicist, use science)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(architect, use science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(architect, use science)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(engineer, apply physics constructing)

Similarity expansion

0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(engineer, use science)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(engineer, use science)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.43
Salient(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(engineer, use science)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(engineer, use science)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Salient(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(engineer, apply physics constructing)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(engineer, apply physics constructing)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(physicist, use science)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(engineer, apply physics constructing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(architect, use science)