taxonomy: be important to science

Property	Similarity
be important to science	1.00
is science	0.96
be said science	0.88
be important to biology	0.87
be important for communication in biology	0.85
be important to communication about biology	0.84
be regarded as science	0.84
is ongoing science	0.83
be important to conservation biology	0.83
be important in research	0.82

0.80

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.06

¬ Typical(taxonomy, is science)

0.76

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.87

Salient(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Salient(taxonomy, is science)

0.76

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.27

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, is science)

0.69

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.87

Salient(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Salient(taxonomy, be said science)

0.68

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.15

¬ Typical(taxonomy, be regarded as science)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.87

Salient(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Salient(taxonomy, be important to biology)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.87

Salient(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.61

¬ Salient(taxonomy, be important to communication about biology)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.87

Salient(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Salient(taxonomy, be regarded as science)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.45

¬ Typical(taxonomy, be said science)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.85

Evidence: 0.87

Salient(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Salient(taxonomy, be important for communication in biology)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.46

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to communication about biology)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.96

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, is science)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be said science)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.36

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be regarded as science)

0.63

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.87

Salient(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Salient(taxonomy, is ongoing science)

0.63

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.87

Salient(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.87

¬ Salient(taxonomy, be important to conservation biology)

0.63

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.85

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be important for communication in biology)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be said science)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to biology)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be important to biology)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be important to communication about biology)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, is ongoing science)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(taxonomy, be important to biology)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to conservation biology)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.85

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be important for communication in biology)

0.57

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be regarded as science)

0.57

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be important to conservation biology)

0.57

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Typical(taxonomy, be important to communication about biology)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(taxonomy, be important to conservation biology)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, is ongoing science)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.85

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(taxonomy, be important for communication in biology)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(taxonomy, be important to science) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(taxonomy, is ongoing science)

Parents	discipline Weight: 0.58 , field Weight: 0.56 , information Weight: 0.56 , topic Weight: 0.56 , structure Weight: 0.54
Siblings	recursion Weight: 0.32 , computer database Weight: 0.32 , ontology Weight: 0.32 , directory Weight: 0.31 , indexing Weight: 0.31

taxonomy: be important to science

Related concepts

Related properties

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

Salient implies Plausible

Similarity expansion

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

Typical implies Plausible

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings