With an arbiter that’ll hopefully call bullshit on empty rhetorical tricks and even do their own research occasionally, but otherwise yes. It’s the difference between a cooperative system and an adversarial one: science would grind to a halt if cherry-picking evidence were accepted as the norm; but you could never trust the other side of a lawsuit enough to assume they’re not cherry-picking, so you have to settle for not lying, which is hopefully easier to check (thus rules on hearsay etc). Now that I’m thinking about it, another point of view might be that scientists, in addition to having less to lose from an unfavourable result, are engaged in a recurring game and thus generally cooperate[1], whereas the parties of a legal case are in a one-shot situation and thus have little choice but to defect.

See also: conflict vs mistake[2]. Left for future work: how do we make (a) advertising, (b) politics more cooperative?

[1] https://ncase.me/trust/

[2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/