This statement is not refutable, because we can no more easily say a particle does not have a position than we can say it does. But the argument lacks plausibility, in my view, because it basically says that we created a certain notion called position, which worked so well we thought is was absolute, and then we discovered it did not work as universally and uniformly well as we first thought. Is the plausible reaction to that that the concept transcends its own usefulness to us, and has some separate existence that is not limited the way its usefulness is? Wasn't the whole purpose of the idea its usefulness? It just seems to lose track of why we generate concepts like position in the first place. We should never take our efforts at understanding reality too seriously, there's simply no reason for us to think our concepts transcend their demonstrated limitations.

Again, this statement is quite true, but is not determinism a scientific concept in the first place? So why should we imagine the concept transcends science? We don't know we can't, but there wouldn't seem to be any reason to think we can.