Talk:biotics
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Just requesting three cites on this one; I don't know what the definition is referring to. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think there's another noun sense of biotic (pl. biotics) too, which basically refers to the union of all the -biotic supplement compounds {probiotics, prebiotics, postbiotics, synbiotics, ... possibly antibiotics?}: [1] [2] [3]. 70.172.194.25 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The closest I could find for the currently given sense would be these articles by the same author (abstract only) [4] [5], but the term is apparently being used to refer to a cross-disciplinary field involving biology and IT rather than as a synonym for life sciences. Maybe someone can dig up better quotations. 70.172.194.25 21:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Source 1 [6] does not use the word in a sentence, Source 2 is paywalled [7], Source 3 does use the word (potentially a cite) in various sentences [8] and the two abstracts do not use the word in a sentence --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, better cites for the meaning that is a hypernym of probiotics are: [9] (page 32: "biotics are a group of nutritionally active components that, when consumed, can confer a health benefit on the host"), [10] ("each of these functional biotics"). 70.172.194.25 22:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The de Rosnay sense is used in a sentence, which you can see in limited view on Google Books: [11], or full view crossposted to his own website: [12]. But it's probably an idiosyncratic coinage that never caught on, considering the article is from the 80s. 70.172.194.25 22:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work IP guy, glad to see IPs contributing. I'm not smart enough on the science end of things to be able to determine if there is an underlying concept consistenly applied through the various cites. Also, there's no English Wikipedia page for the concept 'biotics' which set of my spidey sense that this was not a thing. Anyway, I hope this definition and relevant cites can be added to that page. I was interested in the term because there is a science fiction concept called biotics. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Source 1 [6] does not use the word in a sentence, Source 2 is paywalled [7], Source 3 does use the word (potentially a cite) in various sentences [8] and the two abstracts do not use the word in a sentence --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
cited. The various science fiction senses, as well as the nutritional substance, are plurals of the noun biotic. Biotics, as a plural noun, is either a vague biological science category (the challenged definition), or a pre-ethical attitude that seeks to promote wellbeing and decrease suffering. Kiwima (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that they are actually using the term "biotics" to refer to the science of life. It seems like the paper mentioning "biotics study area" could hypothetically be referring to the area in which biotic samples were collected, or something along those lines. It's hard to tell because they only use the word a single time outside of that three word phrase. And the de Rosnay paper is using it for his own idiosyncratic biology + technology meaning I mentioned above, which is not the same as "The science of life (all those properties that are peculiar to living organisms)". 70.172.194.25 00:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
RFV-failed. Kiwima (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)