evil: have taste good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents concept
Weight: 0.61
, topic
Weight: 0.60
, theme
Weight: 0.58
, movie
Weight: 0.58
, symbol
Weight: 0.57
Siblings corruption
Weight: 0.64
, masturbation
Weight: 0.63
, segregation
Weight: 0.61
, pedophilia
Weight: 0.60
, inequality
Weight: 0.59

Related properties

Property Similarity
have taste good 1.00
have taste 0.96
has quality good 0.81
has quality bad 0.79
have delicious 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(movie, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(evil, have taste good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.01
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.07
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(movie, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(movie, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(inequality, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(segregation, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(pedophilia, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(masturbation, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(segregation, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(inequality, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(corruption, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(movie, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(evil, have taste good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(inequality, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(inequality, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(corruption, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(corruption, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(inequality, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(inequality, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(segregation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(segregation, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(pedophilia, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(pedophilia, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(segregation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(segregation, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(masturbation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(masturbation, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Salient(evil, have taste good)

Similarity expansion

0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(evil, have taste)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
Salient(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Salient(evil, have taste)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(evil, has quality good)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.02
Salient(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Salient(evil, has quality good)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(evil, has quality good)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(evil, have taste)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(evil, have delicious)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.02
Salient(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Salient(evil, have delicious)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Remarkable(evil, have delicious)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(evil, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(evil, have delicious)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.02
Salient(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Salient(evil, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(evil, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Plausible(evil, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(evil, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
Salient(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(evil, have taste good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(movie, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(inequality, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(segregation, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(corruption, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(inequality, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(pedophilia, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(segregation, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(masturbation, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.18
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(evil, have taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(movie, has quality good)