234 KB65 KB200520252024Kristan, Silvoštevilka:3/4letnik:72str. 5-13ISSN:0353-7455COBISSID_HOST:216925955URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-SFPF5YB7slFakulteta za športŠport (Ljubljana)športznanostAUDIATUR ET ALTERA PARS| (drugačen pogled na dvomljive teze)|Although I promised the editor that I would not comment again, the temptation is too great. I find it difficult to accept sophistical and ideological acrobatics and other such tricks, which is why I resist all kinds of manipulations that are spread by anyone. It is only right that the readers should also read the dissenting opinion (altera pars), because only this can stimulate reflection and testing of the author's credibility. Unfortunately, for the sake of clarity and comprehensibility, I must repeat myself here and there. Not least because my interlocutor keeps repeating himself in our correspondence without any further argument. This contribution can also be seen as a supplement to the contribution by Ž. Kozinc and J. Žitnik, who in the previous issue of Sport (1–2, 2024, pp. 5–12) pointed out some of the slip-ups in the research of the field of sport. Both authors point out the weaknesses of research work, such as inaccurate presentation of facts, falsification of data, bias of authors, selective reporting, reporting of half-truths, unjustified generalisations, manipulation of readers, etc. I write about these in detail in my contribution. The only difference is that these authors focus in principle (without concrete examples) on the empirical cognitive branch, while I limit myself to the theoretical cognitive branch (monographs, debates, polemics, etc.) and point out the shortcomings with concrete examples and argued facts (with evidence)Čeprav sem uredniku obljubil, da se ne bom več oglašal, je skušnjava prevelika. Sofistične2 in ideološke3 akrobacije ter druge podobne zvijače težko sprejemam, zato se upiram vsakovrstnim manipulacijam, ki jih kdo trosi. Prav je, da bralci preberejo tudi drugačno mnenje (altera pars), kajti le to lahko spodbuja k premisleku in presoji verodostojnosti piscev. Žal se moram zaradi preglednosti in razumljivosti obravnave ponekod ponavljati. Ne nazadnje tudi zato, ker se moj sogovornik v najinem dopisovanju nenehno ponavlja brez dodatnih argumentov. Zdajšnji zapis je mogoče razumeti tudi kot dodatek prispevku Ž. Kozinca in J. Žitnika, ki sta v prejšnji številki Športa (1–2, 2024, str. 5–12) opozarjala na nekatere spodrsljaje v raziskovanju športnega polja. Oba omenjena avtorja opozarjata na slabosti raziskovalnega dela, kot so nenatančno prikazovanje dejstev, ponarejanje podatkov, pristranskost avtorjev, selektivno poročanje, sporočanje polresnic, neutemeljeno posploševanje, manipuliranje z bralci in podobno. Natančno o tem pišem v mojem prispevku. Razlika je le ta, da se omenjena avtorja načelno (brez konkretnih primerov) osredotočata na empirično spoznavno vejo, jaz pa se omejujem na teoretično spoznavno vejo (monografije, razprave, polemike itn.) ter s konkretnimi primeri in argumentiranimi dejstvi (z dokazi) opozarjam na pomanjkljivostiTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaUniverza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za šport