> Just to emphasize what I hear you saying, it's not
> necessary to "reject" the notion that they
> were tombs, it's only necessary to reject the
> "certainty" (as you said) simply
> because it's not yet proven to be certain. And
> once that notion becomes a mere "possibility"
> regardless of how strongly that possibility is
> believed to be the most likely, it mandates that
> other possibilities warrant consideration, be they
> water pumps, time capsules, representations of
> dead kings, God, aliens, or of course,
> multicultural adaption.
We really shouldn't reject anything out of hand. All we have to work with is logic and facts which are both puny tools to trying to figure out something as complex as reality itself. Normally we'd have extensive evidence for something like this but the pyramids are so old (4750 years or possibly significantly older) that the evidence has all moldered away or is subject to interpretation. If we inadvertently reject the reality with an assumption we might never find that reality.
As a rule we should never reject any possibility for anything but in my opinion we should always act as though reality is knowable and reality is NEVER determined by magic, wishes, beliefs, superstition, or metaphysics. Of course studying some things can affect their nature but it's the study itself causing the effect and not something undefinable or unknowable. "Unknowable" in this sense refers only to things where we lack sufficient knowledge understanding to estimate whether something is possible or probable. "Unknowable" always applies to all things in the sense that we can never be certain of anything.
If we leave open all possibilities it might allow the data to form a pattern. This is difficult for people now days because we see the world in terms of models and these models are pretty inflexible. It's hard to study anything without making conclusions. So everyone believes in tombs just like I did back in 2006. Why dispute experts if you haven't even studied something yourself?