Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (1):39-55 (2008)
|Abstract||After William Gosset (1876?1937), the ?Student? of Student's t, the best statisticians have distinguished economic (or agronomic or psychological or medical) significance from merely statistical ?significance? at conventional levels. A singular exception among the best was Ronald A. Fisher, who argued in the 1920s that statistical significance at the 0.05 level is a necessary and sufficient condition for establishing a scientific result. After Fisher many economists and some others ? but rarely physicists, chemists, and geologists, who seldom use Fisher?significance ? have mixed up the two kinds of significance. We have been writing on the matter for some decades, with other critics in medicine, sociology, psychology, and the like. Hoover and Siegler, despite a disdainful rhetoric, agree with the logic of our case. Fisherian ?significance,? they agree, is neither necessary nor sufficient for scientific significance. But they claim that economists already know this and that Fisherian tests can still be used for specification searches. Neither claim seems to be true. Our massive evidence that economists get it wrong appears to hold up. And if rhetorical standards are needed to decide the importance of a coefficient in the scientific conversation, so are they needed when searching for an equation to fit. Fisherian ?significance? signifies nearly nothing, and empirical economics as actually practiced is in crisis.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kevin D. Hoover & Mark V. Siegler (2008). Sound and Fury: McCloskey and Significance Testing in Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (1):1-37.
Tom Engsted (2009). Statistical Vs. Economic Significance in Economics and Econometrics: Further Comments on McCloskey and Ziliak. Journal of Economic Methodology 16 (4):393-408.
Kevin D. Hoover & Mark V. Siegler (2008). The Rhetoric of 'Signifying Nothing': A Rejoinder to Ziliak and McCloskey. Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (1):57-68.
Stephen Spielman (1974). The Logic of Tests of Significance. Philosophy of Science 41 (3):211-226.
John F. Kihlstrom (1998). If You've Got an Effect, Test its Significance; If You've Got a Weak Effect, Do a Meta-Analysis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):205-206.
Helena Chmura Kraemer (1998). Statistical Significance: A Statistician's View. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):206-207.
Lester E. Krueger (1998). The Ego has Landed! The .05 Level of Statistical Significance is Soft (Fisher) Rather Than Hard (Neyman/Pearson). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):207-208.
Stephan Lewandowsky & Murray Maybery (1998). The Critics Rebutted: A Pyrrhic Victory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):210-211.
Louis G. Tassinary (1998). Significance Tests: Necessary but Not Sufficient. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):221-222.
David Sohn (2000). Does the Finding of Statistical Significance Justify the Rejection of the Null Hypothesis? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):293-294.
John R. Vokey (1998). Statistics Without Probability: Significance Testing as Typicality and Exchangeability in Data Analysis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):225-226.
Fred L. Bookstein (1998). Statistical Significance Testing Was Not Meant for Weak Corroborations of Weaker Theories. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):195-196.
Michael G. Shafto (1998). Costs and Benefits of Statistical Significance Tests. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):218-219.
Jacques Poitevineau & Bruno Lecoutre (1998). Some Statistical Misconceptions in Chow's Statistical Significance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):215-215.
Günther Palm (1998). Significance Testing – Does It Need This Defence? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):214-215.
Added to index2012-02-20
Total downloads3 ( #213,731 of 739,347 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,347 )
How can I increase my downloads?