No, though I don't think you're alone in drawing the line of science around deduction. I think of science as a cycle:

Phenomenon > observation > Induced hypothesis > Method choice > Deduction via metrics > Phenomenon ...

Starting at "a concrete basis for performing repeatable, independent experiments" is a skyhook. Scientists have a hand in generating that "basis" and it's called inductive logic.

I think we agree on the fact that the production of knowledge involves the testing of hypotheses but not whether the generation of hypotheses via observation of phenomena is part of science. Semantic, I suppose, but I think it's crucial to take the rudder so to speak by developing hypotheses deliberately.

Well, I was trying to start a discussion over semantics anyway.

"Science" is already a very vague term, and I think it's important to keep it as concrete as possible in meaning. In my mind, science is associated with testable hypotheses. The generation of hypotheses could be considered part of science, but only if those hypotheses are testable, and in fact tested through experimentation. Otherwise you are simply making guesses. I think this article falls into the "guessing" category.

I don't want "prescientific" to be seen as derogatory, though, which I think may confuse people. It's an important stage in the development of a field of thought. As they say, a field of human endeavor progresses through three stages as our understanding grows: first it's a philosophy, then a science, then an art.

It's only once people start saying anything and everything that improves human knowledge is "science" that "unscientific" becomes insulting. I think, if we keep the meaning of "science" concrete and explicit, then we can acknowledge that there are unscientific ways of learning and advancing without sounding insulting.

Interesting take, and I think I see your point with that clarification of your view of stages of thought. I don't share that concept of the progression of ideas, nor do I feel the need to make the distinction between science and pre science.

I do think that much of what humans do is ascientific. But Jessica's examination of founders, esp via a structured interview, is not in this category.

Einstein made "guesses", but I consider theoretical physics to be science, it's like preparation of food being part of digestion despite not being an internal biological process.

Speaking strictly to Einstein, he made testable predictions, and that's what made that work a part of the scientific process.

Whether something is science or not doesn't affect whether it's good or worthwhile knowledge, though! You wouldn't stop running user studies just because you're not going to get to population-level significance using them. There are many paths.