Yes, we can obviously recognize phenomena. Science wouldn’t exist if we didn’t first recognize the thing we wanted to explain. The scientific method begins with first observing an interesting pattern.

Again, merely observing something and connecting an explanation to a measurement are 2 very different things. You can recognize that breast milk keeps children alive. But you could also analyze milk with an improper tool and use your faulty analysis to develop a naive and damaging recommendation on how to feed children. See the difference?

You say “…it’s perfectly fine to advance by poking in the dark at the problem, and accept that it may take some time to build a formal and academic framework.”

Yes, obviously. That’s science. That is not the same as inventing a circular metric and reifying what you can’t explain into existence. IQ doesn’t poke around in the dark, rather it purports to both define and measure something it demonstrably cannot. You can’t poke something with a tool incapable of “poking” in the first place.

Wanting to identify Godels of the future doesn’t justify the use of invalid tools and poor science. Wanting to do something and being able to do it are entirely different.

All these points and more are addressed throughout the article. You’re conflating a number of concepts that are in fact very different. I suggest you spend more time reading. and contemplating the article to understand your confusions.