Interventional invariance proves causation is objective — causal relationships are those that remain stable under experimental manipulation.

This is literally Woodward’s interventionist theory from 2003. You’re restating a textbook position as if it’s a novel claim.

The claim extends Woodward by arguing invariance under intervention is not just a criterion but constitutive of causation itself.

Refuted. The ‘extension’ is a distinction without a difference. This merely restates an established position.

Cross-cultural variation in causal reasoning proves causation is a cognitive construct rather than a mind-independent feature of reality.

You’re confusing epistemic access with ontological status. Different cultures perceiving causation differently doesn’t mean causation isn’t real.

If causal cognition varies so fundamentally across cultures, parsimony favors the constructivist explanation over positing hidden objective relations.

Refuted. The argument commits a textbook epistemic/ontological conflation. How we know causation is not what causation is.

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems prove mathematical truth transcends formal systems, establishing mathematical Platonism.

This is a well-known non-sequitur. Gödel’s theorems show limitations of formal systems, not that abstract objects exist independently.

The existence of true-but-unprovable statements implies a realm of mathematical truth that formal systems can only partially access.

Refuted. Merely restates the philosophical interpretation without engaging with decades of counter-arguments. No advancement of the debate.

The axiom-dependence of cardinality results proves mathematics is constructed — different axiom systems yield different ‘truths’.

Axiom-dependence is overstated. Core mathematical results are remarkably stable across axiom systems. You’re cherry-picking edge cases.

The continuum hypothesis is not an edge case — it’s a fundamental question about the size of infinity that axioms cannot resolve.

Refuted. Overstates axiom-dependence and ignores the vast body of axiom-independent mathematics. The constructivist case needs stronger foundations.

Thalamocortical dissociation provides a decisive test: consciousness correlates with thalamic integration, not cortical computation alone.

Correlation is not causation. Thalamocortical dissociation studies show correlation with consciousness but cannot establish it as constitutive.

The dissociation pattern is so consistent across lesion studies, anesthesia, and sleep that it constitutes strong evidence for a constitutive role.

Refuted. The argument is circular — it assumes what it needs to prove. Consistent correlation is still correlation.

Consciousness requires an integration field — a non-physical substrate that binds phenomenal qualities into unified experience.

An ‘integration field’ that is non-physical and undetectable is unfalsifiable. This is not a scientific claim.

The integration field makes predictions about binding failures that physical theories cannot explain, such as certain forms of synesthesia.

Refuted. The proposed entity is unfalsifiable as stated. Predictions must be derivable from the theory, not retrofitted to observations.

The thermodynamic arrow of time grounds objective causation — causes precede effects because entropy increases.

Gravitational systems can decrease entropy locally. If causation is grounded in thermodynamics, it fails wherever thermodynamics is non-standard.

Local entropy decreases occur within globally increasing entropy. The arrow of time remains valid at cosmological scales.

Refuted. The gravitational counterexample is fatal. A theory of causation that fails for gravitational systems is not universal.

The asymmetry between memory and anticipation proves causation is mind-dependent — we construct causal direction from temporal experience.

This argument defeats itself. If causal direction is constructed from temporal experience, and temporal experience has objective direction, then causation inherits objectivity.

Temporal experience itself may be constructed. The B-theory of time eliminates objective temporal flow.

Refuted. The argument is self-undermining. Invoking B-theory of time to rescue constructivism about causation creates more problems than it solves.

The compactness theorem proves mathematical realism — non-standard models exist because mathematical structures are discovered, not invented.

You’ve run the logic backwards. Non-standard models arise from the limitations of first-order logic, not from the richness of mathematical reality.

The proliferation of models beyond intended interpretation suggests mathematical reality exceeds any particular axiomatization.

Refuted. The argument inverts cause and effect. Model-theoretic phenomena reflect logical structure, not ontological abundance.