One Swallow Doesn't Make a Summer: Reply to Kataria

In his comment, Mitesh Kataria (2014) makes three main points about a specific part of our paper (Maniadis, Tufano, and List 2014), namely about Tables 2 and 3. In our paper, we employ these tables in order to illustrate the idea that very inconclusive post-study probabilities that a tested phenomenon is true may result from novel, surprising findings. The main arguments in Kataria (2014) are the following: First, if P(H0) is unknown, as is often the case with economic applications, the post-study probability can lead to even worse inference than the Classical significance test, depending on the quality of the prior. Second, the simulation in Maniadis et al. (2014) ignores previous assessments of P(H0) and instead utilizes a selective empirical setup that favors the use of post-study probabilities. [Third,] contrary to what Maniadis et al. (2014) argue, their results do not allow for drawing general recommendations about which approach is the most appropriate. (Kataria 2014, abs.) We believe that our work might have been misunderstood by Kataria. Moreover, it seems that some of his claims are not supported by relevant empirical evidence.