Will academics EVER stop anthropomorphizing "probabilistic uncertainty"? It is something "seen" in "findings" AND (to say the least) not SOME THING. It may well be mainly connected to poor observations OR very preliminary "discoveries". Do people really believe that probabilistic uncertainty can be hard-wired?? Unless you have evidence in real and appropriate actual contexts, such as a naturalistic could SEE, OR at least AS seen sometime(s) in ontogeny with DIRECT OVERT EVIDENCE , then [otherwise] : STOP IT STOP! Understand?.