Recently Google claimedit had reached “Quantum Supremacy”, which is an important discussion in its own right.

The term “Quantum Supremacy” was coined in 2012 by John Preskill, a theoretical physicist at Caltech, to describe the point at which quantum computers can do things that classical computers cannot.

But the journal Nature took issue with the term because of its use of “supremacy”, suggesting the term “quantum advantage” be used instead. Some 13 scientists were co-signatories. They described their reasoning as such:

We consider it irresponsible to override the historical context of this descriptor, which risks sustaining divisions in race, gender and class. We call for the community to use ‘quantum advantage’ instead.

...

In our view, ‘supremacy’ has overtones of violence, neocolonialism and racism through its association with ‘white supremacy’. Inherently violent language has crept into other branches of science as well — in human and robotic spaceflight, for example, terms such as ‘conquest’, ‘colonization’ and ‘settlement’ evoke the terra nullius arguments of settler colonialism and must be contextualized against ongoing issues of neocolonialism.

Instead, quantum computing should be an open arena and an inspiration for a new generation of scientists.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03781-0

Stephen Pinker, himself not a fan of political correctness, mocked the article.

As to my own opinion I agree with Nature that quantum computing and science in general should be an open arena and an inspiration for a new generation of scientists, but agree with Pinker that this political correctness should be resisted, especially in the sciences, because it dumbs down the meaning of language. Euphemism distorts more than it clarifies.

Given that “political correctness” has been on the lips of pundits, politicians and writers for some time now, I think this raises a good discussion for philosophers because it extends to their own craft.

Obviously some people feel this way, or they wouldn’t make the suggestion. It’s easy to mock them but derision is usually unproductive. Their claim may very well be right that people would turn away from quantum computing because the term “supremacy” is uncomfortable. Perhaps it is important to be sensitive to their feelings in that respect so as to appear more welcoming. I also think it’s fair that any enterprise would prefer an inclusive public image and reputation.

Should Science be politically correct?