It is this particular conception of free will that is troubling to many people (including me) because without having a fundamentally physical root, the only way to grant it is by assuming some extra-natural source.no, thats an either-or fallacy that assumes there isnt a third option. and the third option exists. before i read it in the article, i guessed he was going to talk about natural emergent phenomena. determinists are constantly peddling a circular argument that whatever happens is ultimately predictable and deterministic-- if its not predictable, they say "we just havent figured out why it is yet. but everything that happens is ultimately deterministic." well no, you dont get a line of credit to prove your point, based on the promise that you will be proven right sooner or later.
awareness of our lack of certainty about the subjects does not in any way impede us from assessing and judging the soundness of the arguments made, and calling out when they are dependent at crucial steps upon handwavium.be careful that you dont turn argument from ignorance into "proof" that we are wrong about everything. thats whats dawkins types do, and its why theyre so obnoxious and love fallacy so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy