technology: depend on science

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents sector
Weight: 0.66
, breakthrough
Weight: 0.66
, solution
Weight: 0.64
, resource
Weight: 0.64
Siblings computer science
Weight: 0.75
, computer hardware
Weight: 0.74
, fiber optics
Weight: 0.73
, computer program
Weight: 0.71
, internet service provider
Weight: 0.69

Related properties

Property Similarity
depend on science 1.00
affect science 0.88
be important in science 0.84
be important to science 0.84
be used in science 0.83
be different from science 0.82
relate to science 0.82
be related in science 0.81
be related to science 0.81
be same as science 0.81

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.17
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(computer science, relate to science)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
Remarkable(computer science, relate to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(computer science, relate to science)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(technology, depend on science)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(technology, affect science)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.46
Typical(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(technology, be used in science)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(technology, be important to science)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(technology, be important in science)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(technology, be different from science)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Salient(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(technology, depend on science)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(technology, depend on science)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(technology, depend on science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(computer science, relate to science)