To coin a phrase, Amos... "Arrant nonsense is as arrant nonsense does."

And I will guarantee you that *I* am not "...embedding (my) desired outcomes into (my) experiments... ". I fervently wish some of what you believe were true.

You argue that "A far better approach would be to examine changes in subjective states reported."

I contend that all you get then are subjective references and a linguistic correlation of 'presumed' similarities to others' subjective reports. (Sort of like various folks 'reporting' that God spoke to them and 'called' them to do things.) Perhaps God does occasionally require someone to take vengence on His enemies. I sure can't 'prove' it isn't so.....but you & I both know it's well to doubt it.

What you have Amos, is a system similar to Hume's, where he was rigorously consistent in his reasoning.... once you accept his basic premises.( a sort of solipsism) But Hume once noted in a footnote that although he was convinced of his logic, he couldn't live according to it daily, since he HAD to treat stuff around him as objective.

There was a faith healer of Deal,
Who said, "Although pain isn't real,
When I sit on a pin
And it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel".

Stretching the metaphor, perhaps...but I think (to coin another phrase', it is 'arrant sense'. ☺
prove'