Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Statistical Significance in the New Tom and the Old Tom: A Reply to Thomas Mayer

Contents:

Author Info

  • Deirdre N. McCloskey
  • Stephen T. Ziliak
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Econometricians have been claiming proudly since World War II that significance testing is the empirical side of economics. In fact today most young economists think that the word “empirical” simply means “collect enough data to do a significance test”. Tjalling Koopmans’s influential book of 1957, Three Essays on the State of Economic Science, solidified the claim. A century of evidence after Student’s t-test points strongly to the opposite conclusion. Against conventional econometrics we argue that statistical significance is neither necessary nor sufficient for proving commercial, human, or scientific importance. A recent comment by Thomas Mayer, though in parts insightful, does nothing to alter conclusions about the logic and evidence which we and others have assembled against significance testing. Let’s bury it, and get on to empirical work that actually changes minds.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://econjwatch.org/file_download/589/McCloskeyZiliakSept2012.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://econjwatch.org/820
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Econ Journal Watch in its journal Econ Journal Watch.

    Volume (Year): 9 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 3 (September)
    Pages: 298-308

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:9:y:2012:i:3:p:298-308

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: MSN 3G4, Fairfax, VA 22030
    Phone: (703) 993-1151
    Fax: 703.993.1133
    Web page: http://econjwatch.org/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Significance test; economic significance; t test; oomph;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Mayer, Thomas, 1980. "Economics as a Hard Science: Realistic Goal or Wishful Thinking?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(2), pages 165-78, April.
    2. Kevin D. Hoover & Mark V. Siegler, 2005. "Sound and Fury: McCloskey and Significance Testing in Economics," Econometrics 0511018, EconWPA.
    3. Kevin Hoover & Mark Siegler, 2008. "The rhetoric of 'Signifying nothing': a rejoinder to Ziliak and McCloskey," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 57-68.
    4. Soyer, Emre & Hogarth, Robin M., 2012. "The illusion of predictability: How regression statistics mislead experts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 695-711.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:9:y:2012:i:3:p:298-308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jason Briggeman) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Jason Briggeman to update the entry or send us the correct address.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.