Superdeterminism isn't a radically different way of thinking about experimental results as a determinist. > To continue with the coin flip analogy, consider a

Superdeterminism isn't a radically different way of thinking about experimental results as a determinist. > To continue with the coin flip analogy, consider a classical world where a coin flip is perfectly deterministic, given the initial conditions. In the usual way we think about determinism, it's still possible to test whether a coin is fair. Just flip it a bunch of times, a little differently each time, and see if you get a ratio close to 50/50. That's standard science. Every person understanding determinism will assert if you can repeat the same conditions of a previous coin flip, you will get the same outcome of the previous coin flip (for the next flip) and until the conditions are altered to make it so. The "conditions" being all the "external forces" acting upon the coin as it flips and lands. We all understand a coin flip is 50/50 for us, since we're not perfect machines at replication. We would need to be able to analysis how to flip a coin the same as a previous flip and manipulate the environment of the coin flip to the previous flip if required. The foregoing understanding is beneficial for scientists when it comes to experimentation. I understand why people can assume "God/Nature did it" would be worrisome. I still think you're making a big leap with what you originally asserted.