Seriously! Who does GMP think she's fooling?
She puts up a post and a series of polls asking where are all the "hard" STEM bloggers. And writes extensively distinguishing "hard" STEM from "soft" STEM. This latter, apparently constitutes all the bio-medical types.
Leaving aside the hilarious fact that GMP somehow failed to notice all the geo-science, math geeks, computer science nerds, fizzy-cysts, engineers and assorted other "hard" science bloggers, I note that GMP felt compelled to put up this corrigendum:
Some people dislike the hard STEM/soft STEM distinction as it seems to imply that one of them is hard as in difficult and the other one is not. I most certainly don't think that and I don't know anyone who does. I simply use the above distinction as equivalent to a non-bio STEM/bio STEM field distinction, and I think most people do the same. But, as Namezia says below, you can alternatively consider it the physical/biological sciences distinction, although I am not sure where this type of classification leaves math and CS people or people who are engineers.
Heh. heh. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!! oh, masterful!
Here's the thing, GMP. Nobody who is in biology, neuroscience, psychology... or (gasp) social sciences....favors this distinction. That in and of itself should tell you how it is used. The only "most people" who use this distinction are so called "hard" STEM people who are, yes, most certainly trying to run down other scientific disciplines as less rigorous, less precise and favored by smarter undergraduates who do not require grade inflation.
So please. Spare us your disingenuous corrections. Just sack up and FWDAOTI like a proper member of the "hard" STEM disciplines! We can take it....