Their exact words are "court and science"—and the bigger point from the gp comment was about evaluating these things in the spirit of "scientific inquiry".
Yes — they are saying that we should require a lower standard of evidence to disrupt human power structures (e.g. ask someone to resign) than we should for court and science (e.g. convicting someone of a crime or accepting a scientific theory).
The comment they are replying to isn't requesting a similar standard to that for accepting a scientific theory—it was pointing out the danger of punishing people for assessing controversial events with an attitude of scientific inquiry.
> he's being persecuted for having expressing ideas, demanding proof of claims, advocating for objective standards, and asking questions. These are all hallmarks of scientific inquiry.
And the reply to this is that we shouldn't have such high standards for deciding to punish people in power? If nothing else it's a non-sequitur.
Any my original comment still stands: if you do that, you're going to punish more innocent people too.
> Any my original comment still stands: if you do that, you're going to punish more innocent people too.
Is this a bad thing? Different courts also have different standards of proof. Are you saying that you should have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt in civil court? If your friend tells you an acquaintance said something mean to them, are you going to gather evidence and do cross-examinations before you'll believe them?
There is some optimal standard for any class of cases. (At the very least varying the standard will produce better/worse results in relation to particular classes of cases.)
So, no—
> are you going to gather evidence and do cross-examinations before you'll believe them?
—that would be a very bad choice of standard.
I have not claimed to know what the optimal choice of standard is (I will claim that no one else knows it either though), but I do think that changing the standard would have a huge societal impact, and so it shouldn't be done on the basis of a hunch that the outcome would be better. I pointed out one possible complication (convicting more innocent people), though of course the possibilities there are endless.
So to be absolutely clear: I am not advocating for a tighter standard, I'm suggesting that there are complications entailed in lowering it, so it should only be done on a much firmer grounding than some vague notions about catching more bad guys.