method: important for scientists

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents approach
Weight: 0.72
, standard
Weight: 0.66
, option
Weight: 0.65
, tool
Weight: 0.61
Siblings algorithm
Weight: 0.69
, extraction
Weight: 0.67
, strategy
Weight: 0.67
, adhesive tape
Weight: 0.66
, spray
Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property Similarity
important for scientists 1.00
help scientists 0.96
be important in research 0.80
be important to engineers 0.79
was important to humans 0.77
be needed for science 0.76
be important in computer science 0.76
was important to early humans 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

0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, help scientists)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(method, important for scientists)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(tool, be important to engineers)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(method, important for scientists)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(tool, was important to early humans)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(method, important for scientists)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(tool, was important to humans)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(method, important for scientists)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(tool, be needed for science)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(method, important for scientists)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(tool, help scientists)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Plausible(tool, be important to engineers)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(tool, be needed for science)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(tool, was important to humans)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(tool, was important to early humans)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(tool, help scientists)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(tool, be important to engineers)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(tool, was important to early humans)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(tool, was important to humans)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(tool, be needed for science)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(algorithm, be important in computer science)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, help scientists)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(method, important for scientists)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(tool, be important to engineers)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(method, important for scientists)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(tool, was important to early humans)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(method, important for scientists)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(tool, was important to humans)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(method, important for scientists)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(tool, be needed for science)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(method, important for scientists)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(algorithm, be important in computer science)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(algorithm, be important in computer science)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(method, important for scientists)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(method, be important in research)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(method, be important in research)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(method, be important in research)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(method, be important in research)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(method, important for scientists)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(tool, be needed for science)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, help scientists)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(tool, was important to humans)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(tool, be important to engineers)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(tool, was important to early humans)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(algorithm, be important in computer science)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, help scientists)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(tool, be important to engineers)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(tool, was important to humans)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(tool, be needed for science)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(method, important for scientists)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(tool, was important to early humans)