1) And I would be an idiot for doing so - which was my whole point to begin with. :)

2) Well, I refer to my two points above:
How would you call direct observations of altruism (as well as unjustifed aggression) in animals? If you want to avoid anthopomorphizing them, you'll have to take the word and invent some other word for it.
"Altruismwithxes", maybe? What would be the point? It would be still a cognitive mechanism with the same observable effect, just like everything within our own minds.

If they did a measurement of brain functions as I've described, what would you conclude? And how would it not be scientific?

The only question here seems to be the hard problem of consciousness, but that's another thing completely.
Maybe dogs are all zombies? Or they feel compassion, but it's a completely different sensation of "compassion" than ours? So what?

3) Well, it's not so much adding "human properties", as finding common properties.
Apes have arms and legs, does that mean attributing human properties to them? Apes have hierarchical social structures and also follow authority figures and engage in rivarly. Are those "human properties", properties we share with them to a degree, or some other mysterious unknowable hovering phenomenon thing that looks like something human but really is something completely else?

Three guesses which approach seems most reasonable to me ;)

But yea, this thread is about pedomen, not pedobears - so continue this line of discussion with caution, and not at the expense of personal taste :D