>A lot of good math and science was done before the Enlightenment - look at Newton or Euler or Descartes, for example. The scientific environment often operates rather independently of the political environment - the Soviets also had high-quality science going on.

Newton and Descartes are considered part of the Enlightenment, and you cannot conduct high-quality science while the politicians are telling you that conclusions like "evolution operates by natural selection" (re: Lysenkoism) or "there's no evidence for a natural hierarchy of races" (re: both current and previous incarnations of racism) will lose you your job.

Scientists who speak publicly about racial / geographical correlations with almost anything "interesting" (e.g. athletics, intelligence) are swimming in extremely dangerous waters. We saw this in the past couple of years with the media tarring-and-feathering of Harvard psychologist Jason Richwine, and geneticist James Watson. Nobody wants to go near that area - it's the 3rd rail of biological and psychological science.

If even politicians are unable to differentiate extremism in thought experiments and science vs. actual action, then how bad must it be among the general population? Doesn't that consideration justify placing certain things under a taboo?

>If even politicians are unable to differentiate extremism in thought experiments and science vs. actual action, then how bad must it be among the general population?

What do you mean, even? Politicians are much worse than the general population at ever admitting to thinking clearly: their chief occupation is righteousness signaling.