Agreed, the historian has got to present the stuff readably and, if writing for a non-academic readership, has to make it interesting.
The part that needs the rigorous approach is the choice of sources: it is not acceptable for a scientist to use only material that fits the hypothesis and ignore other material without an objective assessment of the value of the material and it shouldn't be acceptable for the historian.
Scientists given a number of studies on a subject with differing conclusions will have to assess each of them for their significance and each study should contain the information as to how the experiment was carried out for this reason and so that the experiment can be repeated if needed. A historical study should contain all the information needed for it to be checked in the same way so that two readers can agree on the facts presented, if not the interpretation.
The difficulty comes in defining facts, given the variable nature of historical sources, but some effort needs to be made to analyse the sources and their origins so that their evidential value can be weighed. There will always have to be some judgement used in selecting facts but historians should have some objective standards for this and should also be particularly aware of their own biases and make sure they are counter-balanced.