From the post Doctrinal Conformity | Unreasonable Faith
History of this type comes down to an assessment of probabilities. Stark has produced a very likely interpretation of what the passage [2 Kings 3:26-27] meant (or, rather, he’s repeating a likely interpretation that most historians agree on. He didn’t invent it.) But for someone like Hess, any interpretation that runs counter to his doctrinal position is impossible.
It’s an interesting problem: how do you hold a discussion with someone who cannot ever accept that you might have a point? No matter how persuasive or logical your arguments, they can never allow themselves to agree.