functionalism: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents term
Weight: 0.50
, topic
Weight: 0.50
, view
Weight: 0.49
, theory
Weight: 0.46
, approach
Weight: 0.44
Siblings constructivism
Weight: 0.33
, theology
Weight: 0.31
, formalism
Weight: 0.31
, naturalism
Weight: 0.31
, political ideology
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
has quality system 0.82
has quality joke 0.80

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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(approach, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(functionalism, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(term, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(functionalism, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(term, has quality system)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(approach, has quality better)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(approach, has quality better)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(term, has quality system)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(constructivism, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(theology, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(approach, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(functionalism, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(term, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(functionalism, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(theology, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(theology, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(constructivism, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(constructivism, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Salient(functionalism, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.32
Typical(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(functionalism, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(functionalism, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(functionalism, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(functionalism, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(functionalism, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(approach, has quality better)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(term, has quality system)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(constructivism, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(theology, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.32
Typical(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(term, has quality system)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.32
Typical(functionalism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(approach, has quality better)