IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

We Agree That Statistical Significance Proves Essentially Nothing: A Rejoinder to Thomas Mayer

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

    In several dozen journal reviews and in many other comments we have received—from, for example, four Nobel laureates, the statistician Dennis Lindley (2012), the statistician Arnold Zellner (2004), the mathematician Olle Häggström (2010), the sociologist Steve Fuller (2008), and the historian Theodore Porter (2008)—no one has ever tried to defend null hypothesis significance testing and its numerous errors. Recent articles by Thomas Mayer (2012, 2013), commenting on our book The Cult of Statistical Significance, are no exception. Of the five major claims we make in our book about the theory and practice of significance testing in economics, Mayer strongly agrees with four. On the fifth claim our disagreement is a matter of degree, not of kind, with no substantive change in results. Overall, Mayer agrees with us and with the new and growing consensus that statistical significance proves essentially nothing and has to change.

    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/623/ZiliakMcCloskeyJan2013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://econjwatch.org/849
    Download Restriction: no

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

    Volume (Year): 10 (2013)
    Issue (Month): 1 (January)
    Pages: 97-107

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:10:y:2013:i:1:p:97-107
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Enterprise Hall, Room 354, 4400 University Drive, 3G4 Fairfax, VA 22030
    Phone: (703) 993-1151
    Fax: 703.993.1133
    Web page: http://econjwatch.org/
    More information through EDIRC

    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. Zellner, Arnold, 2004. "To test or not to test and if so, how?: Comments on "size matters"," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 581-586, November.
    2. Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak, 1996. "The Standard Error of Regressions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 97-114, March.
    3. Elliott, Graham & Granger, Clive W.J., 2004. "Evaluating significance: comments on "size matters"," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 547-550, November.
    4. Deirdre McCloskey & Stephen Ziliak, 2008. "Signifying nothing: reply to Hoover and Siegler," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 39-55.
    5. Kevin Hoover & Mark Siegler, 2008. "Sound and fury: McCloskey and significance testing in economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 1-37.
    6. Stephen T. Ziliak & Deirdre N. McCloskey, 2004. "Size Matters: The Standard Error of Regressions in the American Economic Review," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 1(2), pages 331-358, August.
    7. Ziliak, Stephen T. & McCloskey, Deirdre N., 2004. "Size matters: the standard error of regressions in the American Economic Review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 527-546, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:10:y:2013:i:1:p:97-107. 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.