Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (1):1-37 (2008)

Abstract
For more than 20 years, Deidre McCloskey has campaigned to convince the economics profession that it is hopelessly confused about statistical significance. She argues that many practices associated with significance testing are bad science and that most economists routinely employ these bad practices: ?Though to a child they look like science, with all that really hard math, no science is being done in these and 96 percent of the best empirical economics ?? (McCloskey 1999). McCloskey's charges are analyzed and rejected. That statistical significance is not economic significance is a jejune and uncontroversial claim, and there is no convincing evidence that economists systematically mistake the two. Other elements of McCloskey's analysis of statistical significance are shown to be ill?founded, and her criticisms of practices of economists are found to be based in inaccurate readings and tendentious interpretations of those economists' work. Properly used, significance tests are a valuable tool for assessing signal strength, for assisting in model specification, and for determining causal structure.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/13501780801913298
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,408
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Foundations of Statistics.Leonard J. Savage - 1954 - Wiley Publications in Statistics.
Making Things Happen. A Theory of Causal Explanation.Michael Strevens - 2007 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (1):233-249.
Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge.Deborah Mayo - 1996 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15 (1):455-459.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Signifying Nothing: Reply to Hoover and Siegler.Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak - 2008 - Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (1):39-55.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Signifying Nothing: Reply to Hoover and Siegler.Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak - 2008 - Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (1):39-55.
Economic Method and Economic Rhetoric.John Maloney - 1994 - Journal of Economic Methodology 1 (2):253-268.
Significance Testing – Does It Need This Defence?Günther Palm - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):214-215.
A Plea for Popperian Significance Testing.Zeno G. Swijtink - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):220-221.
Coercion: Its Nature and Significance.H. J. McCloskey - 1980 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 18 (3):335-351.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-02-20

Total views
74 ( #136,975 of 2,420,558 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #248,862 of 2,420,558 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes