That "taste" as popularly defined is already a multi-sensory experience probably isn't controversial to you. Most would agree that plugging your nose alters your tasting experience of a food. I fail to see why other sensory organs like ears and eyes are not fair game to include in the experience. Weak beer tastes better on a hot patio. Sipping brandy tastes better next to a crackling fire.

I mean, sorta? This would be like claiming that folks that enjoy a long bike ride are finding a way to lie about difficult physical tasks. (Or marathon runners, or any other difficult thing.)

That is, I'm pointing out that you can use unique tastes to imprint experiences. And if you do that, it is not surprising that you can grow to like the taste, as it is no longer an isolated thing, but a physical reminder of other things.

Taste itself is a deception. Studies have shown that if you dye a steak blue, it will taste subjectively worse to the eater than if it were a normal color, even though the taste should be chemically identical. With taste tests of identical foods, where one is mentioned to be a higher price than the other, the person eating it will prefer the "taste" of the more expensive one.

The brain isn't a perfect machine - you can't just isolate the chemical reaction that your tastebuds have and say that anything else is lying to yourself about taste.

Breathing through your nose is lying to yourself about the taste too but if you hold your nose while you eat then you won't taste anything.

I think of it more as paying closer attention to certain facets of the experience, and less to others. It's not a lie- those elements are present, to greater or lesser degrees. Nothing is being spun from whole cloth.

There's no such thing as objective taste. There's only subjective perception of taste.