IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/journl/v9y2012i3p298-308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Deirdre N. McCloskey
  • Stephen T. Ziliak

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak, 2012. "Statistical Significance in the New Tom and the Old Tom: A Reply to Thomas Mayer," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 9(3), pages 298-308, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:9:y:2012:i:3:p:298-308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/File+download/589/McCloskeyZiliakSept2012.pdf?mimetype=pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/820
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Ziliak, Stephen T., 2011. "W.S. Gosset and Some Neglected Concepts in Experimental Statistics: Guinnessometrics II," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 252-277, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Mayer, Thomas, 1980. "Economics as a Hard Science: Realistic Goal or Wishful Thinking?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(2), pages 165-178, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Mayer, 2013. "Reply to Deirdre McCloskey and Stephen Ziliak on Statistical Significance," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 10(1), pages 87-96, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McCloskey's Criticisms of Significance Tests: An Assessment," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 9(3), pages 256-297, September.
    2. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McClosky?s Criticisms of Significance Tests: A Damage Assessment," Working Papers 126, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    3. Peter J. Veazie, 2015. "Understanding Statistical Testing," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(1), pages 21582440145, January.
    4. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McClosky?s Criticisms of Significance Tests: A Damage Assessment," Working Papers 61, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    5. Thomas Mayer, 2013. "Reply to Deirdre McCloskey and Stephen Ziliak on Statistical Significance," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 10(1), pages 87-96, January.
    6. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Estimating Rationality in Economics: A History of Statistical Methods in Experimental Economics," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-20, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    7. Thomas Mayer, 2009. "Honesty and Integrity in Economics," Working Papers 92, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    8. Tom Engsted, 2009. "Statistical vs. Economic Significance in Economics and Econometrics: Further comments on McCloskey & Ziliak," CREATES Research Papers 2009-17, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    9. John S.L. McCombie & Ioana Negru, 2014. "On economic paradigms, rhetoric and the micro-foundations of macroeconomics," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 11(1), pages 53-66, April.
    10. Stephen T. Ziliak & Deirdre N. McCloskey, 2013. "We Agree That Statistical Significance Proves Essentially Nothing: A Rejoinder to Thomas Mayer," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 10(1), pages 97-107, January.
    11. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Estimating Rationality in Economics: A History of Statistical Methods in Experimental Economics," Working Papers halshs-01651070, HAL.
    12. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2018. "A history of statistical methods in experimental economics," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1455-1492, November.
    13. Thomas Mayer, 2009. "Honesty and Integrity in Economics," Working Papers 160, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    14. Kim, Jae H. & Ji, Philip Inyeob, 2015. "Significance testing in empirical finance: A critical review and assessment," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 1-14.
    15. Petrick, Martin, 2004. "Can Econometric Analysis Make (Agricultural) Economics A Hard Science? Critical Remarks And Implications For Economic Methodology," IAMO Discussion Papers 14911, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    16. Andrew M. Isserman, 1993. "Lost In Space? On The History, Status, And Future Of Regional Science (Presidential Address, April 4, 1992)," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-50, Summer.
    17. Armstrong, J. Scott & Green, Kesten C. & Graefe, Andreas, 2015. "Golden rule of forecasting: Be conservative," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1717-1731.
    18. Chris Starmer, 1999. "Experiments in economics: should we trust the dismal scientists in white coats?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1-30.
    19. Jac C. Heckelman, 2017. "Tullock on the organization of scientific inquiry," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-17, March.
    20. repec:lan:wpaper:470 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Thomas Mayer, 2006. "The Empirical Significance of Econometric Models," Working Papers 620, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Significance test; economic significance; t test; oomph;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • B4 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jason Briggeman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edgmuus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.