P. argues that much of linguistic argumentation (even in phonology, but especially in semantics and pragmatics) is based on 'soft facts', as opposed to 'hard facts'. He claims that there are no objections against that, because the essence of linguistic communication cannot be characterized differently (since, e.g., what hearers do is transforming physical signals, i.e. hard facts, into beliefs, feelings, concepts, symbols, i.e. soft facts). But he warns against the error of confusing the two (e.g. by arguing against a soft claim on the basis of hard evidence, etc.).