taxonomy: be regarded as lagging science

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

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

Related properties

Property Similarity
be regarded as lagging science 1.00
be regarded as science 0.91
be important to science 0.79
be regarded as commodity 0.79
is science 0.78
qualify as science 0.76

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

0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(field, qualify as science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.40
Plausible(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(field, qualify as science)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(field, qualify as science)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(field, qualify as science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.40
Plausible(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Salient(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science)

Similarity expansion

0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(taxonomy, be regarded as science)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(taxonomy, is science)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.40
Plausible(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be regarded as science)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.40
Plausible(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(taxonomy, is science)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(taxonomy, be important to science)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.32
Salient(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(taxonomy, be regarded as science)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.32
Salient(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Salient(taxonomy, is science)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.40
Plausible(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be important to science)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be important to science)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be regarded as science)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.32
Salient(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(taxonomy, be important to science)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, is science)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.32
Salient(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.40
Plausible(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(field, qualify as science)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(taxonomy, be regarded as lagging science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(field, qualify as science)