I think the problem here is that we have forgotten the proper order of logic in science. We invent concepts like "determinism" because they serve a particular model of reality. At what point does our invention transcend the models and become a part of reality itself? At no point. So it is just arse-backwards to say, "hmmm, reality does not always appear to obey our invention of determinism, therefore it must really be deterministic in ways we haven't figured out yet or can't apply in practice." It might be true, or it might not, and it is fine to look for determinism once we have established the usefulness of the concept. But to do anything more than look for it, to assert it is there and we simply haven't found it yet, is simply awful science-- and that was true even before the HUP.