In a discussion on Facebook, a friend (a non-believer, BTW) made an incidental argument that the Kuzari hypothesis a slightly stronger argument that other "proofs" for the Torah's authenticity. He does not believe that the Kuzari proof is any sort of "proof", but that since its claim is more philosophically based than empirically based, it's less disprovable, since empirical proof is not the currency of argument in the philosophical realm.
However, the Kuzari hypothesis does rest on an empirical assumption of an unbroken chain of transmission of the mesorah since Mount Sinai. However, that very mesorah tells of several "re-introductions" of the Torah, such as Ezra's. Therefore, the entire "proof" is refutable in a somewhat empiric manner.