Maybe archeologists just need a little more common sense.
By the same token, even though conclusions about the construction of the pyramids are arrived at inductively, that doesn't mean they aren't testable. After examining the evidence, I conclude that the Egyptians were able to levitate blocks of stone by chanting a particular verse and waving a dead chicken over them. So I chant the chant and wave the dead chicken, and sure enough, they don't levitate. So I've tested my hypothesis and falsified it - even though I wasn't there, I can disprove the chicken chant theory of pyramid origins.
So, maybe I take a closer look at the evidence to formulate another hypothesis about the construction of the pyramids. And given that I find large camp sites near the pyramids, with food storage and bakeries and so forth, large enough to support thousands of men, and that the stones themselves have marks consistent with stoneworking tools, I hypothesize that the pyramids were built over a period of time by many thousands of men, using the tools which we know from excavation were available to them.
But I wasn't there to observe the actual building of the pyramids - can my theories on the construction techniques of the Egyptians be tested? Can we know whether it was possible for them to have built it in the way I hypothesize?