The mind is not -- cannot be -- a source of empirical evidence. Science requires empirical evidence.

> The hypothesis is testable as shown by the research.

What research is that? Which scientific theory did the research either shape, or test, or potentially falsify?

> I'm not sure why you are saying it is unscientific.

The article describes, it doesn't explain. Science requires explanations, explanations that can be generalized into principles, tested, and potentially falsified.

> I grant you there may be alternative explanations for the data ...

But the data aren't explained, they're described. Test subjects were more likely to answer correctly if they received positive encouragement. That's a description. No one has tried to explain or generalize that description, turn it into something falsifiable.

> it is often true that science has been lead astray by incorrect framing of the question,

Absolutely true.

> but it's still science...

Absolutely false.