Word: correctible
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Ashton R. Lattimore is certainly correct that gender and sexuality are distinct categories and ought not to be conflated in academic analysis. Nor is she the first to argue for such a methodological separation. However, her claims that gender and sexuality have little to do with each other are misinformed. Can we really say, for example, that women’s suffrage has “little, if anything” to do with sexuality when arguments both for and against women’s suffrage implicated Victorian images of “womanly virtue,” derived from...
...invalidate a Georgia anti-sodomy law that, Tribe said, violated his gay client’s fundamental right to private sexual association. Tribe lost, but he was redeemed 17 years later when, sitting in a packed courtroom, he heard Justice Anthony Kennedy say, “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today...
...Fields Medal—is an iconic example of the unlimited possibilities in open online science. Perelman’s proof never underwent the trials of a typical peer-review process, but expert mathematicians have scrutinized his work to such an extent that it is widely considered to be correct. And this success is far from the exception to the rule. The database of electronic preprints of scientific papers on which the proof was published, arXiv, has seen credible research of consistent quality in mathematics, physics, computer science, and quantitative biology. arXiv has even replaced traditional journals as the primary...
...like to do the same for the NFL's less than sterling record of hiring minorities for top coaching jobs. "I could be politically correct and say, No, [race] is not a barrier," Smith says. "But race will always be a part of life." The Detroit Lions invited Smith to interview for a head coaching job in 2003, when he was defensive coordinator of the St. Louis Rams, but he declined, sensing that Detroit was ready to hire someone else. "I don't believe in token interviews...
...condemn our new journal PLoS One. The article is too ill-informed and riddled with factual inaccuracies to be taken seriously as an attack on our efforts to rejuvenate peer review by opening up the process to all members of the scientific community. I would normally feel compelled to correct all these errors, but fortunately I don’t have to. Perhaps sensing the opportunity for delicious irony, the “hoi polloi that roam the Internet” have identified and corrected your mistakes in the open commentary you provided for this article. They did not, however...