4 ms·

FWIW, I’ve never heard of any meaning of symbiosis other than mutually beneficial. I’m not able to cite this but I believe the prefix sym- may imply this.

kaycebasques 2y ago
Look at the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on the topic > Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις, symbíōsis, "living with, companionship, camaraderie", from σύν, sýn, "together", and βίωσις, bíōsis, "living")[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two biological organisms of different species, termed symbionts, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic.[3] In 1879, Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms". The term is sometimes used in the more restricted sense of a mutually beneficial interaction in which both symbionts contribute to each other's support.[3] It acknowledges the popular use of the term while implying that the technical meaning is broader > I’ve never heard of any meaning of symbiosis other than mutually beneficial This is exactly why it's so funny to me. Some snake oil salesman says "we have a symbiotic relationship with XYZ" and in my head I'm thinking "yes, a parasitic symbiotic relationship..."
- TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
  i've never heard of a parasitic relationship being described as symbiotic...
  - kaycebasques 2y ago
    > "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." > "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." > "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
    - prewett 2y ago
      It's all fun and games by Lewis Carroll, but given the amount of doublespeak in American cities these days (especially by the Left but also by the Right), I think we need to insist that words have a meaning and you can't twist them to mean the opposite.
      - kaycebasques 2y ago
        I am literally sourcing my definition from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on symbiosis I totally get it. People usually mean "mutually beneficial" when they talk about symbiosis. But the deeper we go into this Hacker News thread, the more amusing it gets to me that multiple commenters are really struggling to acknowledge the broader meaning of the term. And what's even funnier is that the broader meaning probably originates from biologists and ecologists; people who are very invested in precise language in this space.
        binary132 2y ago
        You cannot use Wikipedia as a source, everyone knows this.
        kaycebasques 2y ago
        We will put aside that debate :) but I appreciate your deep-dive over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40876979 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40876979
    - mncharity 2y ago
      Google Trends for parasitic symbiosis etal seems interestingly different for US[1] and Worldwide[2], suggesting the possibility of regionally divergent usage. [1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22parasitic%20symbiosis%22,%22commensalism%20symbiosis%22,parasitic%20symbiosis&hl=en-US https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%... [2] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22parasitic%20symbiosis%22,%22commensalism%20symbiosis%22,parasitic%20symbiosis&hl=en-US https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22paras...
- binary132 2y ago
  [EDIT] Apologies for the formatting, iOS OCR isn’t the greatest and neither is HN block-quote formatting (or I just don’t know how to use it correctly.) Now now, we all know we can’t just cite Wikipedia as a source. I hardly think this is as settled a matter as you and the author of the article say it is, and I’m sure that after reviewing the following evidence, you will agree with me! In fact, the author of the book on symbiosis (ironically cited by the Wikipedia article as evidence that the broad definition is “widely accepted by biologists,” even though it actually says the opposite!) actually says: while “many symbiosis researchers use this [broader] definition”, “the [broader] definition is not accepted by most general biologists and nonbiologists today, and so fails to communicate effectively,” and “the definition of symbiosis widely accepted among both general biologists and the lexicographers who prepare English dictionaries is an association between different species from which all participating organisms benefit.” (Emphasis author’s.) As cited by the Wikipedia article: > The definition of symbiosis was a matter of debate for 130 years. > [...] > In the 21st century, the latter has become the definition widely accepted by biologists.[13] [13] Douglas 2010, pp 5-12: > This brings me to the most frustrating difficulty in the field of symbiosis - the lack of a single universally accepted definition. Disagreement [...] has led to [...] a lack of consensus. Two alternative definitions of symbiosis, neither fully satisfactory, have dominated the literature for many decades: "symbiosis as any association" and "symbiosis as a persistent mutualism." > [...] > 1.3 DEFINITIONS OF SYMBIOSIS > 1.3.1 Symbiosis As Any Association > The term symbiosis was coined originally by Anton de Bary in 1879 to mean any association between different species, with the implication that the organisms are in persistent contact but that the relationship need not be advantageous to all the participants. De Bary explicitly included pathogenic and parasitic associations as examples of symbioses. Many symbiosis researchers use this definition and, without doubt, some colleagues steeped in the symbiosis literature will have objected to the opening two sentences of this book. > One key advantage of the definition of de Bary is that it promotes a broad context for research into symbioses. It acts as a reminder that it is important to investigate both the costs and the benefits to an organism of entering into a symbiosis (see figure 1-1a); and it is reasonable to expect some of the processes underlying relationships that are classified as mutualistic and antagonistic to be similar. For example, just as the persistence of certain antagonistic interactions depends on one organism failing to recognize the antagonist as a foreign organism, so some organisms may be accepted into symbioses because they fail to trigger the defense systems of their partner and not because they are positively recognized as mutualists. Nevertheless, the definition of de Bary has two serious shortcomings. First and very importantly, the definition is not accepted by most general biologists or nonbiologists today, and so fails to communicate effectively. Most people do not describe the current malaria pandemic or the potato blight that caused the Irish famine of the 1840s as examples of symbiosis. Second, there are few principles generally applicable to symbioses, as defined by de Bary, but inapplicable to other biological systems. As a result, the "symbiosis as any association" definition is something of a catch-all category. Although this definition does promote further enquiry and insight into symbioses, any insights obtained are unlikely to be common to all symbioses defined in this way. > > 1.3.2 Symbiosis As a Persistent Mutualism > The definition of symbiosis widely accepted among both general biologists and the lexicographers who prepare English dictionaries is an association between different species from which all participating organisms benefit. I subscribe to this definition even though it is not without difficulties. “The Symbiotic Habit”, Angela E. Douglas https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Symbiotic_Habit.html?id=gaAG1I50OkAC https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Symbiotic_Habit.htm... If anything, I would think perhaps that we might be able to agree that the Wikipedia article you referenced should be fixed to correctly represent the author’s conclusion, or the offending section excised. :)

kaycebasques 2y ago

Look at the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on the topic > Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις, symbíōsis, "living with, companionship, camaraderie", from σύν, sýn, "together", and βίωσις, bíōsis, "living")[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two biological organisms of different species, termed symbionts, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic.[3] In 1879, Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms". The term is sometimes used in the more restricted sense of a mutually beneficial interaction in which both symbionts contribute to each other's support.[3] It acknowledges the popular use of the term while implying that the technical meaning is broader > I’ve never heard of any meaning of symbiosis other than mutually beneficial This is exactly why it's so funny to me. Some snake oil salesman says "we have a symbiotic relationship with XYZ" and in my head I'm thinking "yes, a parasitic symbiotic relationship..."

TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
i've never heard of a parasitic relationship being described as symbiotic...
- kaycebasques 2y ago
  > "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." > "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." > "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
  - prewett 2y ago
    It's all fun and games by Lewis Carroll, but given the amount of doublespeak in American cities these days (especially by the Left but also by the Right), I think we need to insist that words have a meaning and you can't twist them to mean the opposite.
    - kaycebasques 2y ago
      I am literally sourcing my definition from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on symbiosis I totally get it. People usually mean "mutually beneficial" when they talk about symbiosis. But the deeper we go into this Hacker News thread, the more amusing it gets to me that multiple commenters are really struggling to acknowledge the broader meaning of the term. And what's even funnier is that the broader meaning probably originates from biologists and ecologists; people who are very invested in precise language in this space.
      - binary132 2y ago
        You cannot use Wikipedia as a source, everyone knows this.
        kaycebasques 2y ago
        We will put aside that debate :) but I appreciate your deep-dive over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40876979 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40876979
  - mncharity 2y ago
    Google Trends for parasitic symbiosis etal seems interestingly different for US[1] and Worldwide[2], suggesting the possibility of regionally divergent usage. [1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22parasitic%20symbiosis%22,%22commensalism%20symbiosis%22,parasitic%20symbiosis&hl=en-US https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%... [2] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22parasitic%20symbiosis%22,%22commensalism%20symbiosis%22,parasitic%20symbiosis&hl=en-US https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22paras...
binary132 2y ago
[EDIT] Apologies for the formatting, iOS OCR isn’t the greatest and neither is HN block-quote formatting (or I just don’t know how to use it correctly.) Now now, we all know we can’t just cite Wikipedia as a source. I hardly think this is as settled a matter as you and the author of the article say it is, and I’m sure that after reviewing the following evidence, you will agree with me! In fact, the author of the book on symbiosis (ironically cited by the Wikipedia article as evidence that the broad definition is “widely accepted by biologists,” even though it actually says the opposite!) actually says: while “many symbiosis researchers use this [broader] definition”, “the [broader] definition is not accepted by most general biologists and nonbiologists today, and so fails to communicate effectively,” and “the definition of symbiosis widely accepted among both general biologists and the lexicographers who prepare English dictionaries is an association between different species from which all participating organisms benefit.” (Emphasis author’s.) As cited by the Wikipedia article: > The definition of symbiosis was a matter of debate for 130 years. > [...] > In the 21st century, the latter has become the definition widely accepted by biologists.[13] [13] Douglas 2010, pp 5-12: > This brings me to the most frustrating difficulty in the field of symbiosis - the lack of a single universally accepted definition. Disagreement [...] has led to [...] a lack of consensus. Two alternative definitions of symbiosis, neither fully satisfactory, have dominated the literature for many decades: "symbiosis as any association" and "symbiosis as a persistent mutualism." > [...] > 1.3 DEFINITIONS OF SYMBIOSIS > 1.3.1 Symbiosis As Any Association > The term symbiosis was coined originally by Anton de Bary in 1879 to mean any association between different species, with the implication that the organisms are in persistent contact but that the relationship need not be advantageous to all the participants. De Bary explicitly included pathogenic and parasitic associations as examples of symbioses. Many symbiosis researchers use this definition and, without doubt, some colleagues steeped in the symbiosis literature will have objected to the opening two sentences of this book. > One key advantage of the definition of de Bary is that it promotes a broad context for research into symbioses. It acts as a reminder that it is important to investigate both the costs and the benefits to an organism of entering into a symbiosis (see figure 1-1a); and it is reasonable to expect some of the processes underlying relationships that are classified as mutualistic and antagonistic to be similar. For example, just as the persistence of certain antagonistic interactions depends on one organism failing to recognize the antagonist as a foreign organism, so some organisms may be accepted into symbioses because they fail to trigger the defense systems of their partner and not because they are positively recognized as mutualists. Nevertheless, the definition of de Bary has two serious shortcomings. First and very importantly, the definition is not accepted by most general biologists or nonbiologists today, and so fails to communicate effectively. Most people do not describe the current malaria pandemic or the potato blight that caused the Irish famine of the 1840s as examples of symbiosis. Second, there are few principles generally applicable to symbioses, as defined by de Bary, but inapplicable to other biological systems. As a result, the "symbiosis as any association" definition is something of a catch-all category. Although this definition does promote further enquiry and insight into symbioses, any insights obtained are unlikely to be common to all symbioses defined in this way. > > 1.3.2 Symbiosis As a Persistent Mutualism > The definition of symbiosis widely accepted among both general biologists and the lexicographers who prepare English dictionaries is an association between different species from which all participating organisms benefit. I subscribe to this definition even though it is not without difficulties. “The Symbiotic Habit”, Angela E. Douglas https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Symbiotic_Habit.html?id=gaAG1I50OkAC https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Symbiotic_Habit.htm... If anything, I would think perhaps that we might be able to agree that the Wikipedia article you referenced should be fixed to correctly represent the author’s conclusion, or the offending section excised. :)