I gave counterexamples to general rules. If anything they are anti-causal, because they establish that a causal link is impossible.

In saying something is anti-causal, you are still very clearly making a causal argument (whether you argue for of against it doesn't matter)...

If you claim that hedgehogs never swim as an absolute rule, and I observe a swimming hedgehog, then that disproves your rule

What a shit example, which is not at all applicable to economics.

Lets say I claim a police presence prevents crime. Is your point really that when you see a crime taking place where there is an increased police presence this disproves my rule?

To draw this example further, you could make a graph showing that there is more crime in areas with increased police presence. According to you this would disprove my rule? However, pretty much all economists would agree this relationship is present because of a treatment bias - where a police presence is targeted specifically at those areas with more crime.

You could make a similar argument about your graph - that those countries with the weakest fundamentals needed the strongest austerity (often economic reform) treatment. Which is just key argument #3 of #4 against your claims.

That still makes the statement of "ice cream causes drowning" unusable as a general rule, because it's not true in summer weather. Similarly, the statement "austerity leads to economic recovery" is at the very least wrong for most present-day European states; ergo, it cannot be the one and only cure for all economic ills like the austerity fanclub claims.

Wait, do you not realize that in this example the statement "ice-cream causes drowning" is equivalent to your claims against austerity proponents on the basis of the graph?

You just said the equivalent your claims is "unusable as a general rule" hahaha.