ABSTRACT
The reason some doubt must remain is that it remains to be seen how causation between particulars is related to the causation between facts which is reported by corresponding instances of 'E because C'. How is the fact that Don's fall causes his death related to the fact that Don dies because he falls? These two causal facts must be related because, as we noted in chapter 9.1, they are obviously not independent: they stand or fall together. Don will only die because he falls if his fall causes his death, and vice versa. So there cannot really be two independent causal links here, one between particulars and the other between facts. One of these links must reduce in some way to the other. The only question is how, and which way, the reduction goes. Which of these two types of entity does causation really link, particulars or facts?
