>>1043636
>No, since there's only one culture of right and wrong in real science;
Nah, its more than this by far. There is no national science. Science often has more than one formalism, so does mathematics. Yet, largely, the scientific community shares the same formalisms because it is a global culture. It has its own publications, awards, its own multi-national history. It didn't have to be that way either - there could have been disparate national sciences or mathematics with there own formalisms, own histories etc.
>Basically, globalism isn't compatible with meritocracy.
Non-sense. What do you think globalism is? Globalism isn't a "every country gets to nominate a scientific truth" because thats fair. Obviously some countries publish less, others more.
I used to think that I was probably smarter than everyone in North Korea as a college educated physicist in a OCED democracy. NK was full of starving enslaved peasants. Except, NK has its own Missile Program, and its own military engineering. Clearly, there are people in NK smarter than the average westerner - just not the average North Korean.