The passage closes its discussion of radical skeptics with a severe polemical expression involving punishment by fire, presented as an alternative to argument with people who acknowledge no shared knowledge.
It must not be treated as a practical authorization for violence or as a religious ruling permitting harm to dissenters. The accompanying explanation itself raises legal objections to punishment by fire. Intellectual disagreement does not confer a license to injure anyone.
The academically relevant point is the earlier argument: debate cannot progress normally when all premises and standards are refused. The appropriate scholarly response remains careful reasoning, conceptual clarification and fair examination of evidence.