Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 ovneteeooispoeso hti sdel ofsdaotstatistical about confused deeply is it that profession economics significance. the convince o.1,N.1 ac 08 1–37 2008, March 1, No. 15, Vol. Methodology, Economic of Journal http://www.informaworld.com 10.1080/13501780801913298 DOI: online # 1469-9427 print/ISSN 1350-178X ISSN [email protected] Email: author. *Corresponding of edition first the of publication the since years, Economics 20 than more sinners For the and sin The 1 a ftetodal sce iso economics’: of sins ‘secret deadly two the ill-founded.of the is of science many bad that are argument testing wider significance McCloskey’s with that associated believe economists practices that we evidence And convincing two. any the is mistake there that believe not do we eatet fEooisadPiooh,Dk nvriy uhm C USA; NC, Durham, University, Duke Philosophy, and Economics of Departments 08Tyo Francis & Taylor 2008 ttsia infcne…orudrtnigo h cnmcwrdwl otnet be 57] to (p. continue sins. will hideous … world from ramifying, economic gotten spreading, be the the to of is by understanding lunch crippled our free intellectual … an significance that statistical … believing unscientific stops is economics to economics Until have of to journals best going the are in economists appears of 55) what (p. generations of that rubbish. future Most anything Not again. which theorems]. over believe nonsense, qualitative all all and can’t do significance is You statistical It of damaged. word. [tests Sins seriously a Two been the of has out science comes of progress The on n uy clse n infcnetsigi economics in testing significance and McCloskey fury: and Sound clse 20)dcae h urn rcieo infcnetsigt eone be to testing significance of practice current the declares (2002) McCloskey snteooi infcnei eueaducnrvrilcam n hr sno is economists there (McCloskey and …’ claim, that being uncontroversial economics and is evidence jejune empirical science a best convincing is no significance significance statistical the math, economic That of a rejected. not hard and is percent to really analyzed are 96 that ‘Though charges McCloskey’s all and practices: 1999). with these bad science, in these like done employ look the routinely science they convince bad economists child are to most testing significance. significance campaigned that statistical with associated about and has practices confused many McCloskey hopelessly that argues is Deidre She it years, that profession 20 economics than more For E codes: specifica- JEL testing; Neyman-Pearson Fisher; search R.A. tion tests; significance structure. significance; causal strength, determining signal for assessing Keywords: and for in specification, tool work. model based valuable in be economists’ a assisting to those are for found tests ill- of are significance be interpretations used, economists to tendentious Properly of shown and practices are readings of significance inaccurate criticisms statistical her of and analysis founded, McCloskey’s of elements 18a,Dide( Deirdre (1985a), 1 fEoois aionaSaeUiest,Scaet,C,USA CA, Sacramento, University, State California Economics, of ebgt ifr cnmcadsaitclsgiiac r ifrn,but different, are significance statistical and Economic differ. to beg We edeMCoky tpe iik ttsia infcne economic significance; statistical Ziliak; Stephen McCloskey; Deidre 1;C2 B41 C12; C10; ei .Hoover D. Kevin ne ´ oad .MCokyhscmage ieesyto tirelessly campaigned has McCloskey N. Donald) a n akV Siegler V. Mark and * systematically itk h w.Other two. the mistake b h htrcof Rhetoric The systematically b Department Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 2 o pcf rcsl h yohssta hyrgr satraiet hi null their to alternative function: loss as a regard specify not they do that they do hypotheses they because since and the scientists hypothesis as precisely failures specify are argues, not she economists, Applied qualification. atr. ofiin hti siae ohv cnmclylresize, ‘size large it, economically puts have (2004a) to McCloskey estimated insignificant and is statistically Ziliak that of coefficient title A the matters.’ as First, science. testing. bad significance is unsustainable economic practiced otherwise as for econometrics an that to statistical charge buoyancy the mistaking supporting add particulars to that of used bill claim is tendentious commonplace Their and is readings work. significance inaccurate in their based of be to interpretations the found that of are criticisms assertion Ziliak’s economists their and of support McCloskey practices worse. bad to getting ‘no’ evidence and and no widespread is practice find problem good we this represents claims, ‘yes’ their where to score 1), Contrary and Table practice. articles (see the questions read 19 they the survey, on each them from For 2004a). articles McCloskey empirical and (Ziliak of 1990s surveys two Review on significance, Economic rely statistical about Ziliak the confusion that and deep demonstrate a McCloskey To betray misapprehension? economists through applied do or of And negligence practices error? of this out significance. make it economists economic make do they and frequently How McCloskey’s statistical are: between questions important distinguish in The to failed anywhere have importance. defends economists economic who locate demonstrates economist single significance to a statistical even that to and unable notion citation jejune contrary a the point is been this significance on have writings economic The voluminous not testing. We significance is but with significance significance, large, uncontroversial. associated and statistical economic sins by of that for are, range significance observation economists full statistical that the mistaking charges committing she only routinely hand, not other – testing the significance sinners On with associated science. practices bad many sin: our are economic in significance, mired is the statistical does. testing significance while surely the and measurement on that, the important depend of one accuracy not economically simple the does be about the coefficient certainty may is the of it point significance or Our without insignificant. unimportant point significant statistically statistically economically main any be the may yet, avoid accept quantity To we estimated and, other that 97). p. or outset parameter 1996, the a at qualification: Ziliak declare yet and and us without policy (McCloskey let or … …’ misapprehension, science permanent for statistically significant be … insignificant can [a]nd … be difference senses ‘a other as in ‘‘significant’’ point being main the characterize coauthor widely been have economists applied world’ on contemporary of attacks the reported pages Her and the endpaper). arts, the 2002, in disciplines, (McCloskey economics academic of other sins … ‘anthropology the decried has American She audience. wider a swl scnrbtn oadbt nenlt h rfsin clse engaged McCloskey profession, the to internal debate a to contributing as well As eod clse dpsaNya-ero ttsia rmwr without framework statistical Neyman-Pearson a adopts McCloskey Second, clse’ ilcnit ftrepicplmtoooia hre against charges methodological principal three of consists bill McCloskey’s professional and students both which in instances are there that doubt not do We that charges she hand, one the On further. go charges McCloskey’s But her and she tracts, many McCloskey’s of influential most the perhaps In ne alia inter MCoky19ab n nacnrbto oasre ftat ie at aimed tracts of series a to contribution a in and 1995a,b) (McCloskey n o h 90 MCokyadZla 96 n n o the for one and 1996) Ziliak and (McCloskey 1980s the for one – nthe in antpoel eneglected. be properly cannot , Economist ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. (2004). vni tis it if even American Scientific Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 3 ostepprdsustesinii ovrainwti hc ofiin ol ejde lre or ‘large’ judged be would coefficient a which within conversation scientific the discuss paper the Does 13. the to according coefficients the ranking ( is it? that about econometrics,’ anything ‘asterisk do eschew it paper ( does the tests? power, Does the mentions 10. of paper power the the If only mention 9. the paper paper, the the Does of 8. crescendo scientific the commonly use, first the at significance statistical Is 7. at problem the to relevant form interpretable some in or form, elasticity in reported coefficients Are 3. 2 ostepprdsustesz ftecefcet?( coefficients? the of size the discuss paper the Does 12. all reporting eschew paper the Does 6. ( interpreted? carefully coefficients ( Are specified? 5. nulls proper Are 4. ( included? regressions all for statistics descriptive and units Are 2. not are differences significant statistically that such observations, (2004a). of number McCloskey small and a Ziliak use and paper the (1996) Does Ziliak 1. and McCloskey from questions Survey 1. Table 5 fe h rsed,de h ae vi sn ttsia infcnea h rtro fimportance? of criterion the as significance statistical significance? using avoid statistical paper of the basis does the crescendo, on the solely After inclusion 15. for variables choosing avoid paper the Does 14. the of size the not but sign the on remarking is, that econometrics,’ ‘sign eschew paper the Does 11. 8 nte‘ocuin’ad‘mlctos etos ssaitclsgiiac etsprt rmeconomic from separate kept significance further statistical into is input sections, an ‘implications’ as and ‘conclusions’ regression the the In of 18. use a against (as simulation a ( use ending? ever of paper sense the the Does conveying 17. stopper, conversation the decisive, significance statistical Is 16. 9 osteppraoduigtewr sgiiac’i miuu as enn ‘statistically meaning ways, ambiguous in ‘significance’ word the using avoid paper the Does 19. umre rmTbe1(.15.Zla n clse 20a al ,p 2)rfrol otecapsule the to capsule survey. only their earlier refer are the 529) p. from font 1, wording Table italic in (2004a, in differences McCloskey questions inconsequential and Ziliak with parenthetical 105). summaries The (p. 101– 1 instrument. pp. Table (1996, survey from Ziliak’s and summaries their McCloskey from of quotations description verbatim are 104) font upright in questions The Notes: sal?( ‘small’? statistic? test the of value absolute of size absolute importance? ( ‘importance’? of criterion irrelevant? is information ( appropriate? is test significance of impact economic the large’? discern is can large readers ‘how that so theory, ( economic regressors? with consistent and hand variables? regression xml,de tpyatnint h eal fteuiso esrmn,adt h iiain ftedata? the of limitations the to and measurement, of units the of details the to attention pay it does example, a choosing by merely found ( not observations. are of differences number significant sample? large statistically large a that very choosing such by observations, merely of levels number conventional the at found ( ( ( coefficients? oiy n cetfcsgiiac?( significance? scientific and policy, ( reasonable? reasonable? are are coefficients coefficients the the whether determine to argument? argument) empirical an in decisive significance statistical than more significance? infcn’i n etnead‘ag nuht atrfrplc rsine naohr ( another? in science’ or policy ways? for ambiguous matter in to ‘significance’ enough word ‘large and the sentence one in significant’ s te rtrao motnebsdssaitclsgiiac fe h crescendo? the after significance statistical besides importance significance? of statistical criteria of other basis Use the on solely inclusion for variables choosing Avoid oei hs n 6preto h eteprcleoois…(clse 99 .361). p. 1999, being (McCloskey is … economics science significance. empirical no best math, financial the hard of really of percent that 96 instead all and the with these statistical science, of in like on tests done look are they rely child Neither a science. that to not Though markets Thus are … financial significance science statistical as of useful on is efficiency rely function that loss the tests examine root not unit does that significance of test No ics h cetfccnesto ihnwihacefcetwudb ugdlreo small? or large judged be would coefficient a which within conversation scientific the Discuss ) ) eotcefcet neatcte,o nsm te sflfr htadessteqeto of question the addresses that form useful other some in or elasticities, in coefficients Report shw‘ineooerc, eakn ntesg u o h ieo h coefficient? the of size the not but sign the on remarking econometrics,’ ‘sign Eschew t saitc.( -statistics. ) ) ) ) tisfrtue osdrsaitclsgiiac ob n mn te rtraof criteria other among one be to significance statistical consider use, first its At ettenl yohssta h uhr adwr h nso interest? of ones the were said authors the that hypotheses null the Test shw‘seikeooerc, h akn fcefcet codn othe to according coefficients of ranking the econometrics,’ ‘asterisk Eschew ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal ) shwrprigalsadr ros - - n -saitc,we such when statistics, F- and p-, t-, errors, standard all reporting Eschew ) ntecnlsos itnus ewe ttsia n economic and statistical between distinguish conclusions, the In t -or aeul nepe h hoeia enn ftecefcet?For coefficients? the of meaning theoretical the interpret Carefully ) F saitc rsadr ros eadeso hte a whether of regardless errors, standard or -statistics osdrtepwro h test? the of power the Consider ics h ieo h coefficients? the of size the Discuss xmn h oe function? power the Examine eotdsrpiesaitc for statistics descriptive Report oasmlto odtriewhether determine to simulation a Do ) ) ) ) s small a Use ) ) vi using Avoid Consider ) ) ) 3 ) Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 edteatce,akn fec n h usin nTbe1. Table in questions the one each of asking articles, the read rcie clse n iikadesti usinwt hi w uvy of surveys two their with question this their in address the significance in Ziliak statistical papers to and respect McCloskey with negligent practice? surveys or two confused the economists of Are implementation and design The significance? large, statistical 2.1 and about confused By economists Are significance. 2 substantive of measures her way. not this reject them assessment and of use the and tests for economists strength use show tool widely consider a fact signal we are in the to used, 4, do of properly – of section tests, physics on including Significance In review – significance. go significance. sciences brief statistical life statistical and a then physical of with most all and tests that case begin against undermines testing, broader we case McCloskey’s it significance 3, methodological to that section for turn In then thoroughly rationale significance. We so themselves. statistical them surveys against analysis of the Ziliak’s misrepresents practices in and the McCloskey we papers confidence the that of 2, further particular surveys In show section Ziliak’s weak. We of and In flawed. very McCloskey deeply arguments. is is of Yet, principal economists systematic design other. the McCloskey’s and the that widespread refute for demonstrate is one we mistaking mistake sections, people this following of that cases evidence are real the there science: doubt of No substance, significance. the testing. than significance rather use to other not forms, means do and 55–56) outward tests pp. sciences significance drink, the (2002, using in food, McCloskey mimic that war. with implying economists the pseudo-sciences, return of during criticism the would had Feynman’s mimicking echo aircraft straw they by built as that, the hope islanders goods activity, the Pacific modern in military certain facilities military that of of II forms replicas War are other World Anthropologists and huts after science.’ radio P. observed cult Richard ‘cargo have use a to to argues become, analogy, said has McCloskey 308–317) economics pp. stature. tests, (1985, significance scientific of Feynman’s use its of its of compromised sample because has that, a economics whole that worse, believes Ziliak the or, and constitute McCloskey population 203; p. they a 1985b, when 112). with 167; p. 161, 1996, not deals pp. McCloskey 1985a, involved, and economist only (McCloskey are appropriate series convenience the sample time are when that proper Tests especially reasons. cases, maintains a of most in variety are Yet, a have population. data for significance statistical economics the 361). of p. in tests when 1999, place that (McCloskey no impression …)’ to strong not the next commonly leaves is she it ‘sampling general, (which when In issue only scientific appropriate believes, the she is is, error It between economics. tradeoff in the application taking limited not of sign fixation a the seriously. is Furthermore, power sizes) tests. test and of conventional size power that other the charges (or McCloskey and functions, 5% error loss on II examine type not ignore do generally economists they that just not is It 4 erieaeta eacp htsaitclsgiiac snteconomic not is significance statistical that accept we that reiterate We McCloskey flaws, methodological their of spite in tests significance using In a only has framework Neyman-Pearson the even that argues McCloskey Third, mrcnEooi Review Economic American ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. nte18sadte19s nwihthey which in 1990s, the and 1980s the in 2 fte18ssurvey 1980s the Of Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 ttsia infcne;fv aesi h 90 n iei h 90 htused that of 1990s tests the and that significance. in 1990s) statistical analysis the five not (in but (regression and paper analysis one 1980s criteria regression and analysis; used the both regression in without meeting significance and papers statistical 1980s 1990s five the in the significance); papers 15 statistical in papers: eligible papers potentially the 56 of 20% the omitted Ziliak in and articles full-length the of 04,p.57 2,epai added). they that emphasis say 528, also 527, but pp. criterion, 2004a, same papers the 137 applies ‘the survey survey 1990s the that indicate They that sa nisdslcino etpatc eread We … practice best of the selection in unbiased published papers an full-length as the take ‘We say: they uvyqetos n uhr rue norne rmbs owrtpractice worst to best from ranges 4). Table into 2004a, the grouped McCloskey to survey answers and authors affirmative 1990s (Ziliak of the and number But the papers. questions, by the scored of survey is readings author Each their ambitious. on more based is question, each to primary ‘yes’ often of the is to connection the contributing significance, surveyed statistical practices and broader tangential. economic the confusing might of of case some a mistake one: Although for narrow significance? original, made statistical the be and than economic broader mistake far economists questions do addressing hodge-podge, a are a eapriual motn n,btteipii egtn ehdbasno bears p. method … weighting 3 error p. implicit The the 2, p. importance. several. but its 1, into p. one, to mistake important on relation one stable particularly error article turning a the error, the be author independent makes 18) may of an he (question an as conclusion whether ‘crescendo’ each the whether asking in treating the ask and to 15), at akin To (question ‘crescendo’ is significance kind. the after statistical be arbitrary 7), cannot (question and an they economic of case, confuses weighting any In unequal below). therefore, 3.5 section in section discussed in in 1, interpreted questions weighted. discussed are (e.g. equally they 14, all reasonably how at and on practice depending below, good – reflect 3.2 (e.g. others not others while may not 17); but – contexts 11, practice some 10, in 8, desirable reflect 2, 6, are questions that others questions any (e.g. practices significance describe have interpretation; statistical others not and without 5); do economic 3, of judged but confusion desirable the be to be 13, can connection may 4, that that questions (e.g. preferences ones practices personal not good reflect truly themselves although indicate questions some 19), the Yet, practices: weight. of equal hodge-podge an a bears question each that imply immediately comparisons Such 529). 527, questions. (pp. and methodological well: worse’ as authors, raise getting comparisons across intertemporal is performance from testing flinch compare not ‘significance to do sense (2004a) McCloskey makes and it Ziliak that believe Ziliak and nfc,tersresd o cover not do surveys their fact, In clse n iikrpr h eut ftesre fte18sa percentages as 1980s the of survey the of results the report Ziliak and McCloskey questions 19 Its 1. Table in shown is instrument survey Ziliak’s and McCloskey n oeqetosaerdnat hc emt obecutn and, counting double permits which redundant, are questions some And to is score a up add to Even compared? are authors which on metric the is What sdrgeso analysis regression used sn eto ttsia significance statistical of test a using ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal MCokyadZla 96 .11 mhssadded). emphasis 101, p. 1996, Ziliak and (McCloskey ’ mrcnEooi Review Economic American all 4 h aesidctd u w examination own Our indicated. papers the crn nisl mle htMcCloskey that implies itself in Scoring all 3 h 8 aesi h 1980s the in papers 182 the mrcnEooi Review Economic American Zla n McCloskey and (Ziliak ’ hw htMcCloskey that shows oial necessary logically n n then and 5 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 6 hc asgsi h etwratpriua uget ihrsett each to respect with protocols judgments what particular precisely know warrant indicate know that text to to mapping way the the be best of question. in the records would the And passages have papers. questions to which the be such scoring would in protocols answer such followed ‘significance’? of Ziliak to front and in way ‘economic’ McCloskey or making ‘statistical’ only as adjectives scored the automatically The omits he significance, he Is statistical if significance? indicates economic error he to an be that an refer paragraph) also making to not (or as does are sentence scored he same author survey the an in later Is if, a problematic. error particularly from is data significance statistical at the one. earlier if operating an especially of observer – those to same survey sensibly be such would compared the articles a any different for and scoring in and training or reading critical in of consistency observers period Clearly, times. a different different require between discussion procedures methodological these calibration a provide Generally, (2004) between psychologists.) Mun conversations and example, for Eye for (Von of, wives. observations and subjective husbands or ‘objectify’ coefficients problem scientific to the are out considered how rule When have of not sociologists 4)? and does (question Psychologists alone procedures. null Subjectivity reproducible ‘conversation ‘proper’ 5)? a a (question constitutes ‘carefully’ is What interpreted 15)? What to (question 16)? article others below). (question an 3.1 stopper’ of and section ‘crescendo’ Edgeworth (see the is place motivated What first that the in question significance of statistical or sort of error tests the is, an develop This exactly committing factors? uncontrollable of the course, and in probabilities unstable of 82% to underlying to attributable 1980s the variation the in random in simply 70% increase from genuine with 16 a question themselves. And for 1990s in ‘no’ end profession. assigned an authors not economics of evidence, number the merely are of her facts raw behavior contradicts the resist larger mechanism, underlying to a she about of hard the to be respect to practice be – parts supposed would is in mechanism point as It the a yet comparison. since situated self-contradiction, the and despite be from inferences drawing abstractly, inferences can draws the comparison data and denies McCloskey professions the of significance members. unobserved statistical of yet groups on as have validity hinge two may not that whether ones does – point and populations on The 1980s the court. but in of itself, economists out of equally population, practices different are the a 1990s between comprises comprises century comparisons century twentieth meaningful nineteenth the then nineteenth- the while (see to because population, applied lights parity, whole be such power the own cannot purchasing significance populations, McCloskey’s on statistical data of to by hypothetical century tests objections If illegitimate about below). McCloskey’s are 3.4 skepticism Given section extrapolations worse. and and getting convenience’ comparisons And is 2002, 530). p. of problem 361; 2004a, p. the McCloskey ‘samples and 1999, that difference Ziliak McCloskey 111; believe p. the 1996, (cf. they Ziliak misunderstand significance and McCloskey 668) economic p. 52; p. and 2004b, statistical Ziliak between and the (McCloskey economists’ in articles the h ru fqetosta eldrcl ihtecnuino cnmcwith economic of confusion the with directly deal that questions of group The element. subjective a involve part most the for surveys two the in questions The the in increase an is arise: questions then legitimate, are comparisons such If of authors the that just not surveys their from conclude Ziliak and McCloskey mrcnEooi Review Economic American ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. u htte‘uemjrt of ‘supermajority the that but , Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 n iikadMCoky(04)dsusidvdal ntebd ftertxs as texts, their of body the in- in individually through (1996) discuss Ziliak vivid (2004a) and more McCloskey McCloskey that and made article Ziliak every be and examined have can We interpretation studies. case of depth difficulties substantive scores) The to studies texts Case from 2.2 mappings the (analogously, plates in the actually were interest is, that themselves. data be that the seeing could scientific – in reasonable there tradition, perfectly generated scientific full while a honored is in much And plates, there a are scratch, The and data. from interest, point. themselves all astronomer’s the heavens it misses the doing the that astronomer are and another course, – of heavens, But, paper tables the need?’ my published you not you the could shown in more have What are I view. ‘Why, they see replies, – to astronomer astronomer data who first first of the the astronomer, which asks refined Another results, To published plates. rather astronomy. the the fully plates, for making more These important understand to data. a astronomer conclusion wants in raw a calculations an the the reaching publishes as of then table, stars astronomer The the equivalent interpretation. of require the naturally, plates photographic are taking scores. the scores calculations from The all at about false. revealed What from not revealed error? are best that are II that and mentioning type interpretation mappings actually of to without detailed questions are error the references to These II allied directly? as type power closely of recast or are issues it appear? be but the ‘power’ tests, address could word that statistical they circumlocutions to the that directly ‘forecasting that refer as such enough such not them, variants it do about what usually is But that statistics. But power’ to refers tests?’ it the if only of Presumably, across power cases. and the consistent all judgment mention be in in debatable to remain variations calibration would to and that subject and regulation observers not even require different texts, and would of mechanical interpretation that the is perspective that texts, believe could economics language, of of wiles the to sensitive r tel rnprn n,scn,ta h eeatifraini otie nthe in contained is information relevant the themselves: that scores second, and, of transparent utterly are description the between comparability any the or two scoring including the the mappings between of quality scoring information, surveys. the these of assess consistency such cannot reconstruct we Hoover, maintaining surveys, to and Absent to McCloskey calibrating (email for 2005). articles requests procedures the 11, of our selection February random declined a for Ziliak retrospectively and McCloskey ti upiigta noewotik uhaotreoi n h hudbe should who and rhetoric about much thinks who anyone that surprising is It hr,to o o oosreidpnety EalMCokyt ovr February Hoover, to McCloskey (Email the the independently. for in observe scores articles 2005) to 19, question-by-question the you the [i.e., for [i.e. stars too, plates there, conclusions The photographic our … the survey] at with 1990 arrived you supplied we have which We with disagreeing. astronomers of Think h eest fitrrtto hw htteaaoywt srnm sutterly is astronomy with analogy the that shows interpretation of necessity The paper the ‘Does 8: question straightforward apparently the example, for Take, clse’ esnfrntsaigtempig per ob,frt htthey that first, be, to appears mappings the sharing not for reason McCloskey’s And exist. not do records such that us informed has Ziliak Unfortunately, ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal mrcnEooi Review Economic American r still are ] 7 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 ou ntemi su:de h uhrcnuesaitcladeconomic believe and surveys. criticism, we their special they in statistical for that are low one neither scores each articles confuse But one out analysis. reflect single each author Ziliak’s Ziliak and they and and the McCloskey McCloskey We random; biased. in 1990s. intentionally does not flaws the the from are issue: clearly three illustrate and choices main 1980s Our the we space of the significance? of survey interests the on the from In two surveys. focus their – for five scored on merely comment are that ones to opposed 8 f‘o hnigaotteeooi enn facoefficient’: a of (1987) meaning Spiegelman economic G. the Robert about and thinking Woodbury McCloskey ‘not cf. A. 107; of Stephen pp. accuse (1996, 132–134) Ziliak pp. and 1998, McCloskey Reduce passage, to following the Employers Illinois’ Quoting and in Workers Trials to Randomized ‘Bonuses Unemployment: (1987): Spiegelman and Woodbury ntecefcetetmts ttsia infcnei o noe sstln the productivity settling the as invoked interest, not of is detail question in significance interest. depend economic Statistical the they of results, estimates. question to regression coefficient the relate on the turning on they not from as far and, slowdown; coefficients the of o prpitl,eiiaeaysclrdciei h rwhrt ftechnical of eq. (1984, rate regressors growth of the significance (statistical) in performs the and decline (11)) on accounted secular comments when that, Darby any changes progress. demographic eliminate of appropriately, result the for is 1970s the in productivity eetbe p 1) u ohr osh ofs h esrso statistical of measures the immediately example, confuse For directly considers equation. he he is the (12) productivity] of does Equation meaning on following economic nowhere increases the with oil-price but as significance example, [of 311), uses (for (p. effect estimates Darby his direct detectable’ 311). of p. ‘no precision (12), the that of (eq. indicating measure specification a as final significance his statistical suggests exercise specification fMcalDrysatce clse n iik(96 .14 write: 104) p. (1996, Myopia’ Ziliak Statistical and of McCloskey Case article, A Darby’s Slowdown: Michael Productivity Of U.S. ‘The (1984): Darby and ‘statistical’ adjectives the the instances. not at particular or paper whether in the on ‘significance’ from example, qualify for away not, take ‘economic’ and would day reader the reasonable of end a what on concentrate we ab 18,p 0)hpteie httesapsodw nmeasured in slowdown sharp the that hypothesizes 301) p. (1984, Darby hte h rueti ih rwog h esnn saotteeooi size economic the about is reasoning the wrong, or right is argument the Whether ecn e nu n orsodnl htte17–9got ae r understated are rates growth 1973–79 the that 3.69/6 correspondingly by and annum per percent ae lmntsayeiec famjr17–9poutvt lwon p 311] [p. slowdown. productivity 1973–79 major a of evidence any eliminates … rates h oaih flbrpoutvt n17 a vrttdb .39 hsmasthat means are This productivity 0.0369. labor by private overstated of was rates 1973 growth in 1965–73 productivity the labor of logarithm the h mlctoso hseuto o h ee fpoutvt nteya 93 The 1973. year the in productivity of level the for of equation value this average of implications the significance statistical results. regression its the on is turn regression not do a findings his runs hand only other he his the 1980]: on when Sachs and but coefficient Romer 315), in 311, (pp. a [than balder for is (1984) argument Darby Michael in misuse The h it ae lososta h vrl eei-otrtofrteEmployer the for ratio ratio benefit-cost benefit-cost The zero. overall from different the statistically that not is shows it but also 4.29, is panel Experiment fifth The 5 .1pranm…apyn hsajsmn oteqaiyajse growth quality-adjusted the to adjustment this applying … annum per 0.61 CD F tsso aiu eso eorsrcin Tbe6 .31.This 311). p. 6, (Table restrictions zero of sets various of -tests t apiecnrlvral]i 93i .87wih…ipisthat implies … which 0.7857 is 1973 in variable] price-control [a ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. 6 5 u prahi oitci h es that sense the in holistic is approach Our overstated y3.69/8 by 5 0.46 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 clse n iik(96 .18 ls afce’as ‘affected’ gloss 108) p. (1996, Ziliak and McCloskey imcnlsos hyd o ( draw to not measured noisily do too are They components the conclusions. with of firm some (b) estimates mistake’). and ‘licorice-jelly-bean data a homogeneous; that the limited from this original, call the drawn assumes from we not estimated below wrongly are point 3.2 the section data on second (in the converge that will the data evidence additional the population; ratios? ignores benefit–cost of simply homogeneous estimates different choice group its quite into individual first population the economically the The on divide rely and for Ziliak and and ratio estimated groups to McCloskey specific would component precisely the ratio Or distinct ratio? though more overall overall to even the much whole, the belong from the is they apply of that women them part or are white have estimate they Ziliak because precise women, a and white of get McCloskey three to in Would black small subjects experimental populations. too and ratio of is number significant women, the categories the black either and the that ratio men, suggests overall women white insignificant white the for women, between (white difference The groups men). component four the for of reading that wooden But and estimate. decontextualized, Woodbury overall uncharitable, the that article. an of is on importance charge relies Ziliak’s economic Spiegelman conclusion and the and McCloskey dismiss (Woodbury of …’ Spiegelman the reduced gravamen week and and by The one $158, of than 528). created p. average more the an 1987, incentive by by to … unemployment The benefits insured regular strong. devoted … state and reduced is … unequivocal conclusion bonus article $500 the are of 528–529) pp. Much Experiment logic. Claimant (1987, in mistake Spiegelman’s a of economic and passage significance this statistical Woodbury in and evidence economic of no between find confusion we a – finding on intent are who infcne eoedaigcnlsosaotteefcc fsc program’ a such of efficacy statistical of the levels about different as conclusions well as drawing 44 benefit for as [estimated before reasons large workers as the of significance] factors understand groups by different to differ on essential that treatment be they cost–ratios the would Instead, of ‘it effects purposes. study: uneven policy further the for for groups need the these note ignoring advocate to insignificance hl ewudareta afc’i orycoe od–a es o those for least at – word chosen poorly a is ‘affect’ that agree would we While rirr infcnets h ruetta h .9fgr osnt‘fet is ‘affect’ not does an passed figure it 4.29 because forgone. the – employment important that in be costly argument to be – The could ‘affect’ and … to unsound, test said is significance women arbitrary white for ratio 7.07 drawing before increase workers 1987, not of Spiegelman and groups did [Woodbury program. different program a on such the added] emphasis of treatment 527; if efficacy p. the Experiment the view about Employer of conclusions of the effects point however, uneven statistically Since, state’s is and nonparticipants. affected the 7.07, might among also from is Experiment Employer unemployment however, the attractive on Experiment, modeled program Employer be a Hence, the zero. in from different women white for eiv ob h eeatoe h .9bnftcs ai o h hl Employment whole the for ratio benefit-cost authors, authors 4.29 the the The to value one. according a relevant is, from the Experiment different be significantly to statistically believe is coefficient estimated the oduyadSigla nta eonz ht()tedt r not are data the (a) that recognize instead Spiegelman and Woodbury that and ratio overall the both of estimates present Spiegelman and Woodbury infcneo hi ofiin siae.Freape Terslso the of results ‘The example: For estimates. coefficient their of significance nywiewmn twudb seta oudrtn h esn o the for reasons the understand to essential be would it women, white only ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal pace o sflo motn o ulcpolicy public for important or useful not clse n iik s statistical use Ziliak) and McCloskey The . 9 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 lnS lne 19,p.95ad99 scerpattoeso ‘asterisk of practitioners an clear is informat as test incremental wh someth 909) contain is tests, variable and see Granger-causality 905 we pp. conduct what (1992, But through Blinder econometrics.’ significance S. indicates misused. Alan also is other it author with if an only tests If but or itself, one below). McCloskey) information, 3.3 this by From asterisks, section (favored error. (see standard intervals a nulls confidence or zero) construct of can null the (against statistic o xml,acmo ompeet ofiin siaeadete a either and estimate coefficient fully. a more of data presents in confusion the form examine a included to common imply readers information a not permit the to does example, is enough Frequently, ranking what For rich and is a significance. tables supplied presenting statistical asterisked is of information and fact what economic mere but conveyed, The is needed. information this how htGagrcuaiyadess wheth of a addresses, error dete to Granger-causality according important standard that noise an the the is above it in measurably th that increase imply evidence not significant does statistical statistically The a regression. in results variable 10 hi al spr fa nlssta sutmtl vlae ntrso an of terms cu real in various various evaluated of by ultimately 4). variance and predicted is the 2 Tables that is of fraction analysis that the an variables standard: of meaningful part do economically Blinder is stati and table and Bernanke ar Their more, economic there is confuse What and not Granger-causality. ordered, to rank relevant evidence not present not are do (they econometrics table asterisk The demonstrating mean. for as the ev about errors; not cannot standard distribution, distribution without marginal estimates a from n clse 20a .54 nepe h usinmr ral scovering as broadly more of question grouping the or interpret hierarchy 534) p. any (2004a, McCloskey and y‘seikeooerc’(usin1) clse n iik(96 .103) p. of (1996, size absolute Ziliak the and to according McCloskey coefficients 10), the (question ‘ranking mean econometrics’ Monetary ‘asterisk of Channels By the and Rate Ziliak Funds Federal and Transmission’ ‘The (1992): McCloskey Blinder and that Bernanke mistake specific the make statistical them. and not to economic attribute provide between do probably authors distinction they and and The the that for, 523–527). to significance, pp. analysis qualification sensitivity 1987, of of of, Spiegelman evidence type receipt and abundant the the (Woodbury illustrates mind in in which sex have bonuses, and of race rates by take-up differences the of analysis Wobr n peemn18,p 2)Wiete ontpoieadditional careful provide a not provided do they they earlier While issue, 527) this p. of 1987, analysis Spiegelman and (Woodbury si iue?Zla n clse 20a .55 ieBnS enneand Bernanke S. Ben cite 535) p. (2004a, McCloskey and Ziliak misused? it Is p vle,o te en,teadtoa nomto antb a in bad be cannot information additional the means, other or -values, F ts htmaue hte h xlso ftelg ftefirst the of lags the of exclusion the whether measures that -test ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. p -, tclsgiiac ninte in significance stical F ,and -, c s hte h agdvle fa of values lagged the whether ask ich o bu nte aibe h natural The variable. another about ion toevral rne-assanother Granger-causes variable one at racniinldsrbto sdifferent is distribution conditional a er ti usinaottestatistical the about question a is it t nb drse hog coefficient through addressed be en oatrss,btte opresent do they but asterisks), no e rnl bevdvrals(e their (see variables observed rrently saitc.Srl,teqeto snot is question the Surely, -statistics. mnn,btol htissga rises signal its that only but rminant, ovninltrsod h question The threshold. conventional htZla n clse identify McCloskey and Ziliak that s n ifrn.Brak n Blinder and Bernanke different. ing economic F saitc nahierarchy a in -statistics peigti evidence. this rpreting t o ttsia – statistical not – saitc. Ziliak -statistics.’ t - Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 clse n iik sg cnmtis snta ro neeycs.I a If case. every in to error and determined. Contrary an (Ziliak badly also 103). …’ not p. is sign coefficient is 1996, its the then econometrics’ Ziliak measured, of badly ‘sign and size is coefficient the Ziliak, McCloskey not cf. and but 534; McCloskey p. 11), sign (question the 2004a, econometrics’ on ‘sign McCloskey ‘remarking practicing of is (1995) that Wantz and Bernheim paper. the accuse in later calculated ratios ‘bang-for-buck’ the with address they aebe eeae ytesm oe saporae h neeti h iigof timing the in for interest concern The a appropriate. with consistent is perfectly model is could same changes regimes regime the different possibly by only from generated data of the been whether timing of the have and test of but a statistics, values, which of coefficient for test of changes, one cite regime not its that again question they is rank The address level. that Wantz significance not and a Bernheim table not does and scenario the 547) alternative p. an Adam Yet indicates (1995, asterisk and econometrics. Wantz Bernheim asterisk Douglas and practicing B. Bernheim accuse of also (1995) 535) p. Wantz (2004a, Signaling McCloskey Dividend and the Ziliak of Test Tax-Based ‘A Hypothesis’ (1995): Wantz and Bernheim nrdcin ekre l 19,p.3637 umrz hi findings: their summarize 396–397) pp. (1994, al. et Becker introduction, the about asn eako h in ftecefcet rmwihn neecsaedrawn; significant are ‘More inferences say, they no a both one, which only quoted – the from effects make following coefficients 543) immediately p. sentence is the the (1995, of it in Wantz signs and, because and the only Bernheim on point context. remark McCloskey’s of passing out and confidence.’’’ taken Ziliak of and support levels four selective to conventional [in appears at McCloskey’s significant quotation coefficients and statistically The coefficients,’’ not {Ziliak ‘‘the these of ‘‘are values bonds] that remark, estimated the they high-rated However, ‘report … variable, negative who all crucial are interpolation} 543) p. their on (1995, regressions Wantz 5 and question The Bernheim value. to sign. absolute on relationship the agnostic has remaining while to, often uneasy direction, Theory about addition an coefficients. say to of in definite in interpretation something that theoretical or absolute made stands demands is of, which inference econometrics’ the 1), an instead (Table if ‘sign than, only magnitude occurs to more error more absolute An much objection early. or is the am train I on my as, if for than depends time well late departure am the I as off if minute costly matters a am I sometimes Whether magnitude. sign the measured, iikadMCoky(04,p 4)aepriual ru ociiieGr S. Gary criticize to (1994): proud Murphy M. particularly Kevin are and 540) Grossman, p. Michael (2004a, Becker, McCloskey Cigarette and of Ziliak Analysis Empirical ‘An (1994): Addiction’ Murphy and Grossman, Becker, estimates. their from derived ratios bang-for-buck w aarpsltrte ics the discuss they later paragraphs Two neaan h hre r nupre yteeiec.Tecnrlaayi is analysis central The evidence. the by unsupported are charges the again, Once eienal vrtigi h ae,btms motnl h eitne faddiction. econometrics of asterisk ‘existence’ the and importantly on econometrics most picking but by Sign paper, easy lives the … our in making scientists everything of nearly economic accused decide be eminent to not less anxious are the we that see can you nadto oatrs cnmtis iikadMCoky(04,p 3)also 534) p. (2004a, McCloskey and Ziliak econometrics, asterisk to addition In oilsrt sg cnmtis’Zla n clse 20a .54 quote 534) p. (2004a, McCloskey and Ziliak econometrics,’ ‘sign illustrate To economic economically o h ttsia,sgiiac ftedt.Rgti the in Right data. the of significance statistical, the not , ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal n ttsial r on nTbe2 epai added). (emphasis 2’ Table in found are – statistically and economic antdso h rcsl estimated precisely the of magnitudes economic antds which magnitudes, 7 u fi swell is it if But 11 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 []etal Bce ta. eot(huhte ee nepe)teestimated the interpret) that never admit 541). (p. they they cigarettes’ for (though although demand of report false, elasticities price al.] simply the of et magnitudes is [Becker significance ‘[e]ventually the statistical facts; and the are to world economic point the to about tries facts scientist the them. The but use purposes. purposes, must their one’s the to policymaker whatever relationship on in are depends details they big the what out is work What revenues to ends. and policymakers regulation the own to government it for leaving results 397), their (p. of relevance the clearly indicate orc rnt)rte hna niern n wa a owt this with do I can (what one ( be engineering to But likely below). an more 3.3 theory than the one section above rather (is (see rise one not?) that scientific measurement?) measurements a or from is garnered purpose correct evidence authors Their the in noise. because only matters statistical sign, significance Here faith Statistical term. place essence. consumption is the future will distinction of the is empirical on size, key coefficient than the zero rather a that and is positive claim a Their between addiction. rational that and wow, addiction falls ‘And, add, passage not this do which authors effect!’ in the big that way a is only is advocates The McCloskey significance. what of statistical short about word a Not ti hseooi vdneta sue oass h optn theories: competing the assess to used is that evidence economic this is It 12 hw h,o o uh’I wy stknt enwa ehns causes mechanism different a what addresses physiological article mean a Their is to address. That to why. taken sought shown they is not that have one ‘why’ they not course and If of question, addicted, much.’ not be have how to Murphy smokers or and estimates? Grossman, why, Becker, their But interpret’ shown addictive. ‘never be to may smoking said ‘[c]igarette be In al. plausibility. of et economic calculations Becker their by can the judged then, rates, are sense, interest which these and what for naturally estimates take implications point is the on al. rely by to which ‘significantly’ et relationship reinforced its Becker is significance, not ones and That statistical relevant effect error. the of of standard magnitude tests the its to to referring as refer here interpreted not do which ml o h fet fcagsi iaet rcs(ekre l 94 .47.This 407). p. they 1994, what al. et of (Becker discussion prices careful cigarette a in entirely and changes immediately is of elasticities they discussion effects 3), of Table the calculation their for with the in imply But (reported with estimates. results of it precision empirical follow the main measure their to to significance respect statistical of tests use al. ic h siae eerdt r hs fteimdaeypeeigparagraph, preceding immediately the of those are to referred estimates the Since r mluil o orsodig oitrs ae agn rm5. ecn to percent fully 56.3 not from 407) ranging p. are 1994, rates the al. estimates interest et ( to with the factor (Becker correspond[ing] discount percent. the inconsistent Still, … 226.6 of low estimates myopic. is point implausibly the are are evidence because addiction, consumers rational This with cigarette consistent changes consumption. future that and current past hypothesis that addictive, impact are cigarettes significantly that indicate estimates the Clearly, estimates by These implied demand percent. cigarette 3 in in only increase linkages 10-percent by intertemporal a behavior. consumption contrast, the In addictive of decreases run. importance period long the the one in illustrate percent percent only 4 by 7.5 for consumption by current and price reduces run cigarettes short of the price in the in increase 10-percent a iikadMCokys(04,p 4)cnrlcamta ekre l confuse al. et Becker that claim central 541) p. (2004a, McCloskey’s and Ziliak ekre l’ rmr oli odsigihbtentohptee:myopic hypotheses: two between distinguish to is goal primary al.’s et Becker n ito nase sZla n clse’ 20a .51 assertion: 541) p. (2004a, McCloskey’s and Ziliak is answer an of hint One economic ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. ihn ute eeecst ttsia significance. statistical to references further no with pace economic clse n iik they Ziliak) and McCloskey antdst ethe be to magnitudes 8 e,Bce et Becker Yes, b ) 9 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 aedsrbto.Egwrh(85 p 8–8)poie neryexample: early type an first provides of (see The the 187–188) with pp. logic types. history populations (1885, the from related venerable drawn Edgeworth of been two distribution. a have review under could same a has moments fall sample with significance two applications stage whether Most statistical asks the 1999). of set 1986, we test Stigler familiar, The the tests. laboring significance of risk the tests At significance we of next, logic the wanting. The it and 3.1 find section and this – In tests century. significance of quarter against use last case the are the McCloskey’s against they campaign examine over But larger significance profession. McCloskey’s economics of of do the component tests and against visible themselves lay most in they the defective that only are charges studies the case sustain and not surveys the Ziliak’s and bad? for McCloskey or good estimates practice: Statistical their 3 their of of public significance to the implications relevant of interpretation the elasticities economic for an out estimates. provide and clearly draw question models They the policy. competing on do bearing between direct They have discrimination not taken the measurement does is interest. that too correct, leave much’ a that they ‘how of are For addiction, If or the estimates. question. conclusions of their myopic this intensity in a their the on implicit of bear with not measure fact some consistent in or mean does to as muster Whether seen they addiction? that be evidence of smokers of model behavior rational the can question: i mdls sjs ecln ftesadr deviation: standard the of rescaling a just is ‘modulus’ His infcnecrepnst w-ie etwt ieo .0,‘ ahrexacting statistical rather ‘a for 0.005, threshold of stringent: size 552). Edgeworth’s more p. a 2004, only with modulus, ‘the Horowitz test today, (cf. two-sided the but use advise test’ a …,’ common to twice Edgeworth McCloskey corresponds in by Stigler, significance ones ago and to the years 120 Ziliak simply according forth are set 310–311). pp. standards standards those the 1986, adopt [to] Stigler profession (see deviation httemmnsaetesm n eettenl fteata ifrneflsi the typically, in is falls value difference critical The actual value. the some critical if a through null by determined the can as reject distribution hypothesis and or the null same of the the tail normal) under are distribution the moments the compute the as to so, that conform do (such data to made the distribution be that transformation assumption probability the on particular same: a the are distributions two whether deot’ taeyi xcl h aea sdwt oensgiiac test. significance modern a with used as same the exactly is strategy Edgeworth’s h ifrnebtentema farno eeto f235ad855mean The 0.2. 8,585 namely curve, and that 2,315 of modulus of cause.’ the Means, by selection thrice proposed ‘comes exceeds the random therefore between far difference difference (inches) a observed 2 the males of about that adult which namely find mean British to shall according we 8,585 the curve And of the fluctuates. between form stature we mean difference significant, the is the population and general between criminals the difference 2,315 to observed belonging of the whether stature not determine mean to is the order Means or the in observed example, times is the For between three accidental. Means difference or proposed the were two whether two it exceeds supposing Consider between difference, range. said difference would the which accidental, the under probability-curve whether the form detect accidental, to order In deot’ etn taeyi h aeoeue oa hnteqeto is question the when today used one same the is strategy testing Edgeworth’s ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal modulus 10 fta uv.I tde,tedfeec snot is difference the does, it If curve. that of p 2 ffiffiffi 6 h standard the 13 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 ue,btam omk ueta yeIerri ihl iie ttecs fhaving of cost the at null. limited the tightly from is modulus far error sufficiently (cf. the I are times that type hypotheses null alternatives three that against null all frequently sure to only is make all accepting power two 5%, to by Edgeworth’s rejecting as aims such with but error by size, rule), (as intermediate I error pragmatic an type II of and choice between avoid type conventional The tradeoff can 245). avoid a p. we The 1968a, is can Kruskal test?) There extreme, we the answer. the and of an In power of hypotheses, power. admit the to is and enough what is size specific (Equivalently, what is, not error? That is II different? question truly type are of they when probability equal the as will moments we the identify that the wrongly moments. probability is the different the what than truly reduces null larger true, possessing value) statistic the as were critical test populations under hypothesis (high the sampled error null size of identify small the value I absolute A if type an value? test): of find critical the probability would of we 5% size that a probability 5% secure a to (i.e. chosen hypothesis always, not but hte netmtdprmtri ossetwt ouaini hc that which in Student’s population range. a or with value consistent definite is a takes parameter enough. parameter estimated small explode is an will moments error whether in II difference type well- true size, a the absent given if Still, any zero) hypotheses. for approaches alternative that, (power specific know for we only alternative, computed formulated be can test a ob etd and tested, be to h ros hs h rbblt ffnig| finding of probability the Thus, errors. the aiireapeo h ye If type. the of example familiar 14 r olfrteassmn fsga tegh eeto niae la signal. clear a indicates Rejection imply strength. tests not signal significance of Rather does assessment effect. a the value hypothesized which for in the critical cases tool ignoring those a to the in about are leads even fastidiousness 245), than misplaced reject p. a to 1968a, not less (Kruskal failure is explicit, ‘wordplay’ point value value mere not The critical or it. a are the language reject balance to than hypotheses but a failure greater alternative but strike hypothesis, value acceptance, When to A a error. asymmetrical. how II are rejects null is rejection type a choice and and up of the acceptance I take rejection and type concerns, and We between symmetrical acceptance one. are 3.5. explicitly, good section probability hypothesis that hypothesis in a tests supposed evidence alternative is significance provide well-defined of the model use type, to vital statistical first this the data address the to that the failure of McCloskey’s conjecture tests of or the significance correlation, conformity supports serial are the homoscedasticity, which of as tests normality), (e.g. good tests data Specification as transformed) distribution. to to or conform (raw transformed only will from be they Reasoning is before tests. to them statistical have generate supporting distribution that may 5% a processes data underlying Edgeworth understood (e.g. the As data. for already raw value account the 208) from critical 186–187, directly pp. not model, that (1885, first statistical the a to from of proceeds case tests corresponding special a test therefore, is, the test of of type second size type. The 1.96). the to by corresponds given is itiuinudrtenl yohss odtoa nteudryn omlt of normality underlying the on conditional hypothesis, null the under distribution fcus,teei nte usin hti h rbblt htw would we that probability the is what question: another is there course, Of h eodtp fts ssntwehrsml oet r h ae but same, the are moments sample whether not asks test of type second The naNya-ero rmwr nwihteivsiao sal ocnie a consider to able is investigator the which in framework Neyman-Pearson a In significance from reasoning that enough frequently emphasized not perhaps is It s ^ h siae tnaderr then error, standard estimated the ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. b ^ sa siae ersincoefficient, regression estimated an is t rae hnapriua rtclvalue critical particular a than greater | t ts s ehp,temost the perhaps, is, -test t ~ b ^ { s ^ b null 11 a known a has b h oe of power The null h value the Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 seooial ag u orymaue ntesneta ti statistically is it that sense the in way: this measured answers 50) poorly p. that effect (2002, but an McCloskey regard insignificant? large we of should how well-measured magnitude economically But A the neglected. otherwise? is be (cf. said (here may matters ever effect size clearly who economic But ‘oomph’) trivial obvious: 527). as but p. is to 2004a, refers question McCloskey 360) and p. this Ziliak (1992, to McCloskey what answer or the influence sense, significance? statistical one of In independently matter size Does 3.2 trivial. economically economically be be may may effect effect measured are well-measured or noisily a data necessary the A either important; of the is significance. asymmetry significance economic if the statistical for that out notice sufficient asserting pointing escape not In are still …’. we out test, will significance them effects bring to ‘[s]mall numerous size, insufficiently conventional) other (or signal. no the is overwhelms there noise possibilities: two or between detect choosing to for evidence signal no offers reject to Failure euei o5% hc a tge eed,i at nwehrtetrue the whether on part, in depends, goes or 67% it to observations way estimate experience more the as Which whom raise large 50%. either of stay will will to three example, it is it 60% for that subjects, of observation, reduce confidence rate five sixth A no bean. A have have jelly accrue. can licorice we we a eating but if the after large, Yet, a symptoms different signal. migraine in are of the beans example: no subsidence overwhelms bean, jelly of noise jelly is licorice the sort licorice that not; a principle conclude different Clearly given we a migraines? is Should in against headache (i.e. subsides. effective migraine clearer signal quickly a faint is migraine with the the point subject from and single The estimated a as signal). effect trial the the clinical of of size faint value the a not to the response signaled), in is dig what we of of type (here of size value cost test that the potential large is the a between If point choose interaction noise. may The background we signal). an another. the large, not on and is in in does life) error depends victims looking a II signal signal of finding (here cost the a signaled not is the to if are what all, respond we Yet, after that we be. for, mean whether looking; could may up we there there pile give that victims), that one not reasonably be is but may to conclusion we there, there immediate rubble improve, expect Our down a data. we from alive more come which get help someone in to for situation further cries (a dig faint apparent literally earthquake the an If after noise. The the heap there. reduce be to not order may in it know. or not there do be we may that It is signal. point the masks Noise extraordinary. h rnia li teefc seprclytee htvrteniei’–is – is’ noise the whatever there, empirically is effect ‘the – claim principal The htsessyn Kl,kl! wihaoeprasbcuesewsi heated a in was she (the Scrabble), significance of because game of perhaps the level arose in 1% be proposed could the (which it word at rescue? alarm) kelp!’ a that false ‘Kelp, a about so by argument saying noise, embarrassed be a of she’s in will lots help!’ you that ‘Help, of that called probability midst someone low If the satisfactorily is. in noise the voice, whatever faint there, empirically is effect The ihr(96 .4)akolde hsaymtywe esae ht ie 5% a given that, states he when asymmetry this acknowledges 44) p. (1946, Fisher oie oee,i steptnilsz ftepyf htmtes(..tevalue the (i.e. matters that payoff the of size potential the is it however, Notice, data more seek may we skewed, sufficiently are benefits and costs the if Clearly, MCoky20,p 0 f 98 .117) p. 1998, cf. 50; p. 2002, (McCloskey ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal o ol o ot her to go not would you 15 is Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 stelcrc el en,bti atsedoes: she fact in but beans, jelly licorice the as ifrn rmwhen from different sntrlal hnteeaefv rsxo oeohrsalnme of number small when give no involved to other principle measurement, The have signal. the some the of can The of quality zero. or strength we the including the convey of number, that six to idea distant is an measured quite test us or other significance badly some the five truly so of not function are is is it effect that there measurement confidence systematic the when that The implies statisticians reliable and noise observations. to size the known of the not well on presence point, the part, is key that in The is and, noise. econometricians, the estimate – and 60% influences the other below of or variability above lies effect systematic h en oedre u,aa,tesoyi as:tesuywshle al because early halted was study that the reasoning were false: the is aspirin illustrate story would of it the effects true, alas, the were But, it endorse. If to 22). p. means 2005, she 52; p. 2002, and 33 p. 16 huhsaitclyisgiiat hni o-ln samples: non-blind in than the Blank insignificant, in by refereeing statistically blind expressed though of clearly effects the the is on of point paper Review estimate a The initial in the 578–579). 1053) pp. p. around (1991, 2004, shrink necessarily Wooldridge 2002, not (cf. does (McCloskey mean mean noise provided’ the the but has if rises, size God as and what benefits McCloskey with and go for costs to the basis calculating by 53). have guided p. and though the ‘You be noise dataset, known: to is the ought were large ignoring This policy a 50–52; – that necessarily pp. 674). p. claim estimates on 2002, will 108) p. (McCloskey 2004b, dataset one (1996, significant small McCloskey Ziliak’s as latter a the and value and on mean Ziliak insignificant estimate be same an will that the former implies essentially rises yield size sample as clse 20a p 4–4)pti,‘l yohssaerjce,adin and be will rejected, they that are know significance.’ you hypotheses and of data, level the ‘all Ziliak pre-assigned at As any look it, 535). at to p. rejected and having put 2004a, without McCloskey McCloskey 540–541) fact, pp. 123–124; and mathematical 117–119, Ziliak (2004a, pp. 101; 1998, McCloskey 98–99, pp. (McCloskey 1996, size Ziliak sample of artifact snowdrift. well a equally could on devout in it light when most event of Jesus the defining of play a especially vision the a be (perhaps be declaring surely Christian from would devout hesitate Christ should most Christian) of the Coming but Second history, to The human be is. it would what measured, know badly though large, mistake. were licorice-jelly-bean results the the make because simply early clse ie h sii-er taksoyfeunl eg clse 1995a, McCloskey (e.g. frequently story attack aspirin-heart the cites McCloskey oepol i o e hi al oeo sii.(clse 98 .118) p. which 1998, in (McCloskey experiment aspirin. double-blind of the dose zero life- with daily in effect on their large go get so in was to not effect did immoral are the people was (at because coefficients some it significance have) statistical that to insignificant of wanted terms short researchers statistically saving halted medical were the that disease level heart case the and aspirin the on not experiments is It n ih eldutta clse ol doaeuigs il nexample an silly so using advocate would McCloskey that doubt well might One h rueti alcos e,teetmtdsadr ro al stesample the as falls error standard estimated the Yes, fallacious. is argument The falls error standard estimated that fact the if as writes frequently McCloskey clse rtsa fsaitclsgiiac risgiiac eeamere a were insignificance or significance statistical if as writes McCloskey can we before noise the above rise must message the but matters, message The htsoe htwmnsacpac ae eelwri ln samples, blind in lower were rates acceptance women’s that showed that N 5 10,000. both ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. large and ttsial significant. statistically 13 12 mrcnEconomic American insignificant ohv atdit halted have To N 5 1or5isno The . mean Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 eo,adtecefcetetmt ol setal alayhr rmngtv to negative from anywhere true fall essentially the could infinity: estimate positive coefficient the and zero), motn) n h estimated the and important), r efcl olna n h rdc arxo h needn aibe is variables independent the of on error matrix standard constant large the product infinitely and an rate to the tax equivalent estimate is and the to This stall: tried singular. collinear would we package if perfectly the Yet, regression, rates. are in a tax assumption as of This (1) importance constant. economic is Equation rate the tax undercuts the way period, sample no entire the for that and suppose rates tax If admtr utbgeog oalwteeooercpcaescesul to successfully package econometric on the error allow standard to The matrix. enough product big the regression. just invert the – from term rate random tax the eliminate we unless possible is measurement a xrs niisnrtcpeeec o oe vrsz,bti sntamsaein mistake a a not with is it test but a size, observations using over of by power number for increasing captured between logic. an preference be tradeoff with the idiosyncratic can size an favorable as with that test express samples the more rises may true, reduce large a tests to in is Failing of be error size. What power may II smaller type the less. there and that that than I is so type better hint, observations, is 102) Of of p. many. information number (1996, to preferred Ziliak more be and nonsense; to McCloskey written, are is As observations conclusion. that few that perverse course, proposes a 1) to (Table leads reliability. 1 noise, of question accompanying degree in the any But, of with practice estimate. independent estimate McCloskey’s decent initial as – the a not approximates value, get the true that or might the by one observations on we – of converges swamped that then implies number is one the larger, be signal Were will much it the value. taxes general, true that of the large is detect variability a error cannot the we produce standard that the should so of noise, tries message of The number analysis. small A again. try and difference.) terms error the codn otefloigequation: following the to according not. h nystain nwihMCokyapast cetteueuns of Neyman- usefulness function: decision-theoretic loss the explicit strict, an accept of a existence into the to is cast which appears of is marker McCloskey it the framework, when which Pearson is in significance situations statistical only The framework Neyman-Pearson The 3.3 rfsin h esg ftesgiiac et sntta women that have not not do is we that tests but significance process, refereeing the the in of fairly message The profession. uey ln’ td drse nipratqeto o h economics the for question important an addresses study Blank’s Surely, ako ttsia infcne oee,idctsta n antasm htalarger a result. that The same papers. assume the of cannot produce sample one would larger that papers a indicates with of however, significant sample significance, be statistical would differences of these lack that true is It o d oenie osrc h a aibea osatpu eysmall very a plus constant a as variable tax the Construct noise. some add Now clse’ nupral da hta siaecnb sdreliably used be can estimate an that idea, unsupportable McCloskey’s policy for it use nor one true the as estimate this regard not should we Obviously, omk h on la,cnie ol nwihivsmn sgenerated is investment which in world a consider clear, point the make To 14 investment b r i,te a ae r cnmclyiprat u e us let But important. economically are rates tax then big, are ~ ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal constant b ih qa adta ih elb economically be well might that (and 1 equal might b ^ qa 00 (If 2000. equal z a | neetrate interest b ^ osntdfe uhfrom much differ not does b z ilb ue(the huge be will b | clear a rate tax vdneta hyare they that evidence z b error nti ae no case, this In . t saitcnear -statistic are b redraw , treated ð 17 1 Þ Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 nyt salwrd’(oueSvg’ 15 17] p 29)eoaieterm). evocative 82–91) pp. [1972], (1954 Savage’s use (to but worlds’ ‘small framework. to science, only a for such function. metaphors applying loss by defined illuminating advance clearly provide broadly a null cannot to may a science related Neyman- which problems in be a through control can The engineering model alternative production probability Such in distinct. crisp as tractable a a such to conceptually stand with formulate applications is to hypothesis are in possible frequently engineering home is they it of at engineering which Still, most goal is and the aid. framework works; Pearson mutual Science world of the outcomes. relationship 543). way p. particular the 2004a, understand achieve to McCloskey is and issue science the Ziliak address indirectly 58; p. power statistical functions. concerning 1985b; 2002, loss 1) cf. (Table of 361; 118; 9 p. p. and 1998, 8 1999, (McCloskey Questions function’ 359; loss p. a without 1992, science run can’t ‘You rmasrigta,t easine tms ecnetdt oll concerns worldly to connected be must different it quite its science, is by a that function. economics, But be loss Perhaps. that to a physics. through maintain that, than to asserting worldly wish more from be may should down. McCloskey falling nature, economics? its loss of of traffic costs a the science the of have benefits on the yet may on nor depends bridge way bridge no the function; in a loss over mechanics that flowing Newton’s designing articulating of in truth a useful engineer have the mechanics but Newton by Newtonian An find should him may governed function? to he mechanics (and function; were loss his uncountable the of his choices of which applications structured Newton’s Around practical error. of II unforeseeable) type often none and I mechanics, type of balancing his formulating In 18 clse 20a .59 setta atgtyftcreaino 0.20000000001***, of and correlation Ziliak fit issue, tightly at ‘a is sons that and assert fathers 539) p. of (2004a, incomes second. McCloskey the the between to correlation implicitly the appeal which significance,’ must of she ‘scientific centrality science, the to and sustain economics to notion To to while function use.’ parallel definition, loss first or of a the the application to is science in appeals implicitly significance’ utilitarian the McCloskey or ‘economic a of to ‘[p]ractical that resources 2.c: material ‘[r]elating argue and the of nation’; 2.a: regulation or and definition community development the ‘economic’: to relating The of economics; derivatives. definitions their pertinent and ‘economics’ and etn fcus,ddntapa osaitc nhis in statistics to appeal not did course, of Newton, articulate, choose? hypothesis? to we null impossible the should to be function alternative would every loss function, it be whose loss which it And a into in engineering could incorporate inquiry, defined to how less scientific tightly But much larger some purchase. detailed a the In considerable to investigation), many. have applied scientific a error may in of approach embedded be ways Neyman-Pearson may the which of one; (some is problems truth of way r o nqet ttsia neec,hwvr n h aefro gis an against or for domain. wider case a in the applies and function loss however, a on inference, based them statistical between balance to optimal unique not are eas rcaiiyi eta,teNya-ero rmwr a eapplied be can framework Neyman-Pearson the central, is tractability Because of goal the speaking, Broadly engineering. and science confuses McCloskey ftesineo hsc edntdpn nispatclipr,wyms the must why import, practical its on depend not need physics of science the If neapecaiisteilso.I icsiga ril ySln(92 in (1992) Solon by article an discussing In illusion. the clarifies example An ‘science’ words the on equivocating hand, of sleight a in engaged is McCloskey osdrta adaki h itr fpyis sa etnsmechanics. Newton’s Isaac physics, of history the in landmark that Consider 18 ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. xodEgihDictionary English Oxford Principia . 16 ye n Ierror II and I Types ie two gives 15 The 17 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 eibeosraini o eeal h ia tpi cetfcraoig u a but telescopes reasoning, and scientific Microscopes context. in wider step a in final assessed be the will Like generally that evidence approach. not extraction. of signal Neyman-Pearson is piece as observation problem the statistical reliable adopting the saw A not rightly high-level Fisher for she him, a before however, Fisher disconfirming Edgeworth McCloskey, Statistical or condemn Unlike noise. confirming not observations. from directly reliable does signal about obtaining extracting not about but is efficiently theory, view, at aimed testing this is, local in that finds strict testing, – She of error science. program particularly of a minimizing approach, in philosophy at important encompassing Neyman-Pearson approach all a Neyman-Pearson the an the into as defends cast taken instance, Bayesianism be against Deborah cannot for philosopher as The testing (1996), (But 591.) p. significance problem. 2004, Mayo most Gigerenzer scientific cf. out, the mode; decision-theoretic to points crisp relevant 240, p. probability functions 1968a, the loss Kruskal articulable, the practice. clearly and current are as tractable, alternatives well models the as where – investigation economics scientific of only not – science all of history cnmcmgiuei h 0hdcmlpae( ereo cuayta is that refinement of accuracy degree great tools. the of empirical of for our but and about degree an import remarkable imply practical discriminate (a would quite its it for fact be place not that in would – decimal economists it could to physics) economist 10th interest in an the found if the in were sometimes Yet, value 0.2. true magnitude the grant exactly whether economic readily on or We hang significant. estimated could statistically importance one is practical digit of last nothing the that that implies fit’ ‘tightly of that nothing say would esi as it sees theory. in the qua the (1984) as in Metherell important, element and highly essential be Cook, an would place, Chen, was result decimal law of despite the 29th inverse-square discussion moon, Yet, the the the below). to in (see 4 fly 2 section formula still from would old differ rockets the implications: to using practical shown no If, were be wider law. might power inverse-square the ambitions. there exact relevant for practical an the import any followed fact, gravity have practical in that not their believed need of Newton itself the example, terms to enterprise For in import scientific their not the of and Indeed, terms world. science in measures defined pure relevant generally of the are formulated, enterprise benefits be especially, can and, they costs when of even But, formulate. to difficult a loa motn otiuo osaitc n t plctost psychology to applications of its Economy and who the statistics (1885), of Peirce to fields. notion S. contributor other Charles The and important philosopher research. an American also of the was practical management by initiated the and was design and Research the world in the part about true have truth. is not a what did that of that obvious import between not problem is distinguishes a it case, on sciences, that can work in have function never even loss scientists though would a Some – and practical. consequences be mind, practical not of foreseeable need turn science of practical purpose a the 10), endnote (see eas ontdn h sfleso h emnPasnapoc sato of tool a as approach Neyman-Pearson the of usefulness the deny not do also We rcia mlctosmte,btte r o h is-re ocrso science of concerns first-order the not are they but matter, implications Practical ed o eyta rcia osdrtoso rbbegi n otpa a play cost and gain probable of considerations practical that deny not do We cec.Rte hnsen cec ocre ihhwtig r,McCloskey are, things how with concerned science seeing than Rather science. primarily 20 osfntosueu nteeooi nlsso eerhmybe may research of analysis economic the in useful functions Loss ud opatcldcsos u htmksannes fthe of nonsense a makes that But decisions. practical to guide a generally economic ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal escesul riuae.Yt cnmc,lk other like economics, Yet, articulated. successfully be infcne’W aeteeapet presuppose to example the take We significance.’ 19 ngnrl sEgwrhobserved Edgeworth as general, In exactness scientific fthe of 19 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 htcvr oho clse n iikssres id 3 nre natce in articles in entries 131 finds More surveys, functions. Ziliak’s and estimated period hazard a McCloskey the 1980–1999, around of over cumulative both JSTOR bands in covers archived and using that journals confidence economics functions, those of report search a while hazard broadly, routinely bands; functions, data vector confidence survivor duration their partial in report or or settings autocorrelation typically survival default using functions as investigations intervals autocorrelation Similarly, confidence large these routines. packages, the software plot autoregression of econometric and EViews, to used practice Ziliak as is widely (Ziliak standard Indeed, functions such and intervals. The impulse-response intervals’ confidence she report false. the who confidence is graph but macroeconomists claim report empirical advocate, of The seldom an number 534). p. economists is 2004a, ‘… too McCloskey that McCloskey And complain are intervals. 1994). tests Hoover confidence significance (cf. data Similarly, statistical focus. for in criteria focusing when the only among observations reliable provide ofdneintervals. confidence 20 lmnaySho) n iew rjc ttsi u fsml rcnie its consider or sample of out statistic Road a Graham project in class Clary’s we sixth-grade Mrs the time of of regarding a indication Any (e.g. are an population as School). we wider as mean then a Elementary class of class, the Clary’s sample sixth-grade a and Mrs Coyle’s as of population, Mrs class mean of entire the mean the use likely we as the if class But the statistic. regard descriptive may we sixth-grade, eotsfiin nomto o edrt opt h ofdneintervals confidence the compute to reader errors, standard a plus estimates for (coefficient report cases, themselves not information most do in sufficient who and, researchers reasoning test report those confidence-interval significance Even use the null. frequently computing intervals the confidence as to value as isomorphic value hypothesized is hypothesized case, errors the other interval this taking some standard confidence or in zero two the constructed, that outside than say is To lies more interval estimate. is the confidence from estimate The errors significance standard the null. conventional when the The tests. rejects from is significance away errors intervals for normal confidence disdain for her for test of regard light favorable in McCloskey’s puzzling them, report economists entries. 1788 finds period same the over nmn iutos clse eivsta infcnetss vni proper a entire in the even possess economists tests, because significance place, population: that no have believes framework, McCloskey Neyman-Pearson situations, if many inconsistent: econometrics In to is approach it probability be. The And also 3.4 intervals 548). p. confidence must 2004, so Granger suspect, scientifically and rather are taste Elliott tests of significance one (see is then, principle complaint, The than intervals). confidence construct to enough clse issavtlpit fw aclt h enwih fMsClary’s Mrs of weight mean the calculate we If point. vital a misses McCloskey bevtoso h eea rc ee nteUie ttsadteUie Kingdom United 204) p. the 1985b, and McCloskey States cf. of United 134; universe p. the entire 1984, the in Zecher have level of we and errors price involved: (McCloskey are sample general 1880–1940. with no deal the is significance of of there tests cases observations that many errors in the said, but have sampling, we as thing, one For doae fteNya-ero prahfeunl ao reporting favor frequently approach Neyman-Pearson the of Advocates htvrtetuho clse n iiksve nhwfrequently how on view Ziliak’s and McCloskey of truth the Whatever mrcnEooi Review Economic American 21 erho l 9eooisjunl rhvdi JSTOR in archived journals economics 39 all of search A ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. o hae niaieo eotn rusing or reporting of indicative phrases for t tss–o even or – -tests p vle are – -values ¡ two Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 in s‘eahscl ihteipiainta h emi yoyoswith synonymous is term the that implication 161–162). pp. the 1985a, McCloskey with (also – ‘nonsense’ population). ‘metaphysical’ the of as assignment of sex tions members the unobserved, in of only as one well result actual outcomes as the what the (unrealized, from infer second differed members women to that sample) its cohort and A (a a cohort a for men realizations. faculty is is be actual population would of the the more mechanism use Here pay we discrimination? for the one: sex the hypothetical or wait Here between characteristics relevant simply characteristics? differences in the differences we relevant the if and are similar example: paid whole one example: open-ended, be with hired take the as women men To of – senses. regarded cohort as next of population insists the same variety a would McCloskey involve a the place, in most in as remain answer faculty mechanisms to – current current want the have we than that not wider questions slower?). is the do promotion since occur because we population, or it Sacramento pay does of University, (e.g. rates lower difference at discriminatory hired any is shed to sex behind second, one and, mechanisms because sex to the other attributed for on be controlling can objects light that, discrimination, the differences of Instead, are indicative women. there not not and whether factors is men determine study between to a means first, such in be, in difference should question the key of The fact to faculty. raw male the related and female issues of these salaries But compares other point. warranted. McCloskey’s and is of sample population, essence projectable the a the not as to representativeness are observations of right the the issues testing are homogeneity of at we use aimed that the our is conclude statistics whether sample, cannot of one deal the whenever good But A sample, fact. of case. a a each as simply in data is This so the way sample. do regard a this as we them data That use observed misunderstood. we the be regard not we should question, point vital the be to projectability atclryse iesre aaa ee etn h odtoso en apeof sample a being of conditions the meeting never as data series time realizations. sees what bearing particularly experimental evidence discover develop the to to behind is and lie again experiment that run the mechanisms be the of to the on experiment point fact the in the were are course, happen but line. samples, would of assembly supply But, not an do population. not experiments and whole a such is from test science run data one, But the are reasoning, each population. test and whole experiments rejection), to the or Many wish to acceptance not outcome guiding does the function produce loss project but to Neyman-Pearson wants tolerance a one certain (with If sample a control. production within to bearings similar ball situations underlying of case the narrow and of the intervals, features utility. confidence great key errors, of of standard are in estimates – tests example, of sample, of significance for a precision sort of expressed, the part either – then, of mechanism to are, measures observed Answers The the observed. than, …?’ and already other the if outcomes those And realizing to, happen of additional happened?’ capable and will are whatever that ‘what mechanisms behind contemplate generally, question lies is ‘what question but policy happened?’ ‘what generally, iikadMCoky(04,p 4)dsisapast yohtclpopula- hypothetical to appeals dismiss 543) p. (2004a, McCloskey and Ziliak State California the of faculty entire the covers that dataset a construct we If that study a universities: many to familiar example real-world a Consider cnmcdt r aeyeprmna.MCoky(95,p 0;19,p 138) p. 1998, 204; p. (1985b, McCloskey experimental. rarely are data Economic in only home at are precision of measures such that imagine to seems McCloskey ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal all h eut r eodd yMcCloskey’s By recorded. are results the 22 u h cetfcqeto snot is question scientific the But 21 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 22 ofr oa dqaepoaiiymdladae hrfr,sufficiently therefore, arbitrary are, any that and claiming not model are We probability never inference. that useful adequate sustain realizations to an over homogeneous and to times conform other extends that as Road population Graham a well of at sample as classes a sixth-grade as occurred. countries the seen be of other And, can sample prices times. classes across a of sixth-grade later as series the and time of well the sample earlier as a School, into 1967, as seen extends in be that Virginia can the population class in sixth-grade a whether Clary’s of in Mrs can as sample interested period just a are 1880–1940 McCloskey as The we context seen parity. scientists, with be which purchasing-power As But in displays what? realized. mechanism so parity, economic actually claim, purchasing-power her were of made that question originally 1880–1940 the Kingdom to what United respect than sample the larger structure? and this be homogeneous States means a of the in variation of such moments random difference detecting signal from the the the in follow say, whether normally Would, useful of (‘are would noise. question are the the type is sample?’) address above of they rises that kinds concern first since other of homogeneity, a the in from moments departures analogues Such the deep of has break). from the it tests distinguishable again because structural but Significance result (a a series, may is cases. time changes There behavior for kind. data different pertinent in particularly the radically difference In series, a homogeneity. generating about not time error, structure is of sampling it in case captured population, not the whole is the which have uncertainty, special not do or realized of do uses not tests. the was significance of one that and change course, intervals, path any of confidence being is, a there assessments could errors, far such without standard there Making how realized but structure. actually ask underlying was series, been to the that time in errors one sense a the the makes from of had it depart path paths could and actual different others, one provided been only have have is could realizations There (2) further differently. so provide and will distribution, realized run; (1) probability that to a population of allowed of data, realizations sample of if of a run up are single variables built a economic the typically part, Morgan that an is in (see which is, model as series, conception time probability this modeled A a in 1995). to be Spanos conform and nevertheless 8, errors chap. the 1990, could model where statistical Fisher, errors, a plus by to structure contemplated conform automatically as not such conceivable did in any which not data, under are non-experimental not they that could judgments these relevant. fallible fact that make in not we circumstances on’ is these rather, so a It and relevant; a morning, presenting 591). of be that planets para. dreamed late circumstances been having the 1934, having this he milkman Peirce week, that dress, the (cf. the blue note before, night a ‘not of the on does day horse having chemist white a daughter the the his such repeated others: configuration, on many have certain ignore we produced We that was up. the judgment phenomenon set repeating a are the respect. we making of this that are aspects say in we we similar When are experiment, exactly. experiments repeated ‘same’ be Yet, never run. can one experiment only An has history population: a ed o iht iiietepolm fesrn htsc populations such that ensuring of problems the minimize to wish not do We United the in level price general the of observations the all have we that true is It we whether to respect with yet, different; are data experimental and series Time that case the make to was econometrics to contribution great (1944) Haavelmo’s ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. relevant Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 n iik19,p 8 mhssadd.Bthwwudw utf uha such justify we would how But added). the emphasis solved on 98, been p. depends have forth. problems 1996, supposition? coefficient] so econometric and Ziliak usual ‘the regression model, the the demonstrated: and is a all of approach that specification be [of the suppose The to term, ideas mean tests. error needs significance the estimated of that of properties [the] estimated use thing of vital the very a of accuracy the and most size the assuming – of 106; the one statistics question-begging, 104, avoids pp. emphasizing in she ‘oomph’), 1996, issues In (the central Ziliak equations 534). p. regression and of 2004a, means 1, McCloskey (Table conditional McCloskey 361; search p. and specification 1992, of variables Ziliak practice McCloskey eliminate related 14; to the tests question and significance equations using regression of from practice the condemns McCloskey search Specification the 3.5 unobserved as an from grounds draw same possible the one The exactly 112). as 104, on data pp. population. realized rests 1996, treating Ziliak simulation be, of and such could McCloskey meaningfulness what 17; any not; question of was 1, but (Table meaningfulness been, yet have not could and is – what but necessarily hypotheticals: simulations in that trade see – to fail usefully should testing, significance to larger, alternative a explanation of contributory historical sample no a the therefore, form and, subsuming observations causal possible. the on no is cases) then stochastic relies population, (in viewed unrealized, market) that be but cannot way stock elements a these a such If a mechanisms. in causal or from generic particular airplane sample to elements a an – of possibility the crash one on relies but actually comparison was 2003). was a Woodward observed it Such (cf. actually railroads. as population no was hypothetical economy were spawned. what there American it that which the literature in idea of the run scientific a run and counterfactual to one railroads such realized famous American compares (1964) of of essentially to Fogel’s development nature Fogel in reasonably the hypothetical example conforms of for or analysis that acknowledged mechanism counterfactual is as economic viewed The knowledge be enduring instead theory. can an but data economic another’ historical of after observed. that thing fact, outcome understand damned in ‘one to the not as is viewed was school be but cliometric not been, the need have of in could data achievement observed that great situate data The must population we that of the point context the on the grasp to only fail should focusing history, economic in equations. regression ignores of McCloskey coefficients which the of of tests, application testing probability useful significance a significance the to of of usefully example tools conform another do the provide cases tests particular be specification specification in can of Such data they point model. an that that The establish such such model. to For be probability is population. or tractable tests larger conform, a a to either of conform, must to sample data transformed a the valid, as be regarded to be interpretation usefully can data of set ti qal uzigta clse,wosrnl doae iuain san as simulations advocates strongly who McCloskey, that puzzling equally is It (the events particular of explanation causal all that argues 4) chap. (2001, Hoover to approach cliometric the of advocate an McCloskey, that puzzling is It ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal (McCloskey ’ u ofix to But 23 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 te ra fmdclrsac htfihul pl tnadof standard a apply or faithfully epidemiology that in example, research for medical is, of it than areas – other datasets large using microeconomists of grounds the clearly on she specifications contrast, insignificance. regression In statistical from to unproblematic. their variables systematic be of little to elimination has it the McCloskey taking attacks tests), specification, roots error unit about on say 361 p. 1999, McCloskey (e.g. methods. it frequently econometric less ignored; of is typically users it not if workaday is even by tests econometricians, indirect specialist discussed such and among of complex consideration power so major The a or are is calculation. gains coefficient defy economic regression critical would practical a the ultimate they assessing the that between in and error connection correlation an the serial from available, of losses test were function. a function loss say, loss (reject/unable-to- particular in, a a value Fisher of such context of if the manner even in than But, asymmetrical rather Such the reject/accept) one. of in good instead model a reject applied is statistical estimate typically the coefficient provide are particular from a tests to departures that assumption used other the and justifies are departures that breaks, heteroscedasticity, tests structural correlation, serial Significance normality, of from 2006). requires existence data the Johansen the to to relevant 1995; model evidence the adequately Spanos of that (see congruence model the statistical testing establish a To of data. context the the characterizes in only meaningful are magnitudes 24 mosblt fmaueeti h aeo nasltl osatvral othe to variable the the constant from absolutely and sample. continuum an infinite error the of an along standard case of ourselves accuracy the the find reasonable perfect in we of a where measurement role be us of tell may The impossibility to 3.2 regression significance. is section a test economic in from significance equation its variable investment despite a the eliminating thing, of of clear, significance example economic makes the coefficient the above As determine a not coefficient. does estimated of it accuracy an though the meaning even a about significance. measurement, information statistical economic itself the important its of conveys on is The significance depend statistical variability view, size. again, McCloskey’s But sample in sample then, But not the should variability. estimate of sample product the unacceptable of fortuitous to an elimination coefficient as measured Finally, regarded widely irrelevant. is is which produces criterion mining, generally significant economically, data practice. statistical size significant of economically a sample not smacks are large of that coefficients they a suggests elimination when related: even which the closely estimates significant is in statistically statistically second result are The may they variables. not criterion or statistical whether education, regressions race, well reported as age, interactions in includes their them frequently, that significant. and, retain regression suspects’) to ‘usual sink’ (the and ‘kitchen forth a so and it use region, regressions, to earnings, or standard wage, cross-sectional is in example, For estimates. reporting aibeeiiaini escmo neoois–epcal among especially – economics in common less is elimination Variable tests specification such of use the of condemnations desultory some from Aside economic of measurements statistical section, last the in stressed we As sw a nscin31 yia infcnetssrlt h antd fa of magnitude the relate tests significance typical 3.1, section in saw we As a that is first The objections. related) (closely three have to appears McCloskey ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. p , .5for 0.05 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 clse 18a .10 95,p 0;19,p 6;19,p 4)acpsthe accepts 242) p. analysis. further 1997, much 361; p. without 1992, mining data 201; p. of 1985b, condemnation conventional 170; p. magnitude. (1985a, economic coefficient McCloskey its measurements the address if our test legitimately But that may the evidence. admit more we that to seek then zero to but significant, and to case statistically mind, a enough a open is cases an such close keep that in these is to choice imprecise, of Evidence coefficient no are one the have 8). that chap. We of power. either magnitude 2001, lacks means as the (Hoover that zero up or from cases holds distinguished show two is be should information these cannot Non-statistical coefficient Both distinguishing equation. regression insignificant. to to a connected vital economically causally in not zero is is from that needed. variable indistinguishable variable are A data value. dependent more other other; some the to the set or been way have one could significance confident the be of not message could large the one but significant: that measured practically is badly be test not A be may significance. could or one practical may however, about coefficient measured, judgment precisely coefficient the is small it in As substantively confident significant. but practically measured be not precisely may very A estimate measurement. the constant, precise not is itself variable the of that provided observations, of number usini o aslycnetdt h eedn aibe ntefrtcs,a case, first ( the values In possible of variable. set dependent a ( as the value of to conceived be connected may causally variable not 168–169). is 152–153, question pp. cf. sampling 47–49; for pp. except coefficients, 2001, zero Hoover find should (see income of regression error and a successful, money were in they on If supply the rate precisely. money rate interest interest the target eliminate the adjusts a Reserve hit to to Federal as the to instruments way that linked a and causally such their rate, is interest money use the that and a suppose to GDP example, as real For intend zero factor. particular include policymakers a may of the instance, influence for when of range variables, point a Policy have zero. focal may coefficient includes a that First, values 2.4). sec. possible 2, chap. 2001, shrinks (Hoover simply zero exactly sample of larger 3.2 and section value. larger And (see that a zero. then around false exactly zero, error be is exactly standard may enough is nulls the some coefficient large us, true is reminds the 246) size if p. sample (1968a, Kruskal the As if above). significant is important economically coefficient are taxes equation, investment hypothesi the in – status ontological eed nhwmn ersosaecniee.Lvl’ ocuin r closely higher are significant much conclusions How finding Lovell’s size. test considered. of nominal are the regressors probability than many higher the how is on orthogonal, set make and depends fixed random are a that truly is from regressors distortions variable Ziliak regressors independent and potential McCloskey an size and when 201, instance, all that, generates p. demonstrates For 1985b, 112) McCloskey mining significant. p. by 1996, statistically cited data be 2–4, pp. to (1983, that appear Lovell is results insignificant objections statistically of class b aibeeiiaino h ai fsgiiac et safr fdt mining. data of form a is tests significance of basis the on elimination Variable it – significant economically remains zero to set be to happens that variable A fnihro hs ae ple tetrue (the applies cases these of neither If eod netmtdcefcetmycneg nzr eas h aibein variable the because zero on converge may coefficient estimated an Second, value a return naturally should coefficient regression a which in cases two are There their about statement a not is measured badly are that variables of Elimination ilb ttsial infcn twaee ieoelks oedt ed omore to leads data more likes: one size whatever at significant statistically be will b 5 ahr ti esrmn taey clse’ eea li htany that claim general McCloskey’s strategy. measurement a is it Rather, . 0 g V .I h eodcs,testo osbevle sepy( empty is values possible of set the case, second the In ). ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal b ? 0, V ? ) hnfrasfiinl large sufficiently a for then Ø), V hc ae particular a takes which ) V 5 Ø). 23 One 25 ex Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 26 hteooiswl go padsatfcsn t nriso on rprscience proper doing on energies hopes its She focusing tests. start significance and for up use ‘grow will little economics have that believes, McCloskey tests scientists, significance Real for use tests do scientists significance Real opposing tools 4 inferential In work. use their data.’ do to to tools of refuse the economists exploration to deny would rigid McCloskey the adequacy, ridiculously specification in revered be most tests] would 530) – p. ‘it [hypothesis 218) 2004a, p. McCloskey says, (1968b, and – Kruskal Ziliak 116; econometrics. authorities p. of (1998, McCloskey’s work of small real model. one are the specified sensibly) avoids incorrectly herself conducted an Krolzig McCloskey is using and results search from the inference Hendry These of (when As strengths. costs search the mining). of signal to costs (data relative given the search and it, for tests put specification possible underlying (2004) on the best of crucially the size depend LSE near nominal the Lovell, the power by near criticized empirical size algorithms the empirical to display contrast and In algorithms Hendry it. recovering 2004), there at which good (1999, in very models Perez specification simulate true and They a (2001). Hoover Hendry is and part of Krolzig in and experiments provided (1999), is Carlo Krolzig validation Monte Such samples. the small by to applicability their of validation data. that the the criteria and of model stringent evidence supposed meets provides the that well testing between model be Specification congruence statistical measurement. can a accurate coefficient of support a context would that the insist in mistake they not only rather do measured econometricians is significance, LSE econometrics economic other of and for rule Hendry golden statistical mark: ‘the the mantra, miss (2004a, test,’ 27–28) McCloskey’s pp. test, and (1980, test, rigorous Ziliak a search Hendry’s terms. emphasize at for error survive jabs that the justification 530) 1995), will of p. deep properties (Mizon specification statistical a approach’ the true provides of ‘LSE testing theorem the the The as only tests. such data, methodologies, of set enough The enough zero. given to stringent asymptotically fall that, error II says type and correct theorem I the type toward select Both are unity, set. grows approaching values) the probability from critical size a specification larger with sample will, equivalently, battery the (or, test sizes the as employed, test tests, smaller specification increasingly and of crucial. infinity battery be a to and out the specifications turns with which data error, the the of congruence of the model to statistical attention hypothesized no pay algorithms search particular ersosadafxdsml ie he erhagrtm sews regression, (stepwise algorithms search of three set size, fixed a sample with fixed that, max of a shows (1983) and only Lovell regressors search. publication specification the of condemnation 534). to p. 2004a, is, McCloskey Kruskal 1996; and that Stockman Ziliak and – 245; but Landsburg, p. Kahn, discussed, 1968a, problem’ example, much for the ‘file-drawer (see, carefully to results been and significant analyzed, have 10), chap. which well 1996, rules, Mayo less stopping (see optional statisticians by of analyzed characteristics the to related nspoigta alteuuleooercpolm aebe solved,’ been have problems econometric usual the ‘all that supposing In require typically results asymptotic And result. asymptotic an is theorem White’s of set fixed a for that, states 379–380) pp. (1990, White to due theorem A ti omn u o arne,t eeaiefo hs betost general a to objections these from generalize to warranted, not but common, is It R 2 n a-i | max-min and , xhypothesi ex t ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. )rtr usata iedsotos oee,these However, distortions. size substantial return |) n eosrt htLEsac loihsare algorithms search LSE that demonstrate and Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 n iikadMCoky20a sn e fkyod htwudidct the indicate would significance. that statistical keywords of of set tests a using of 2004a) use McCloskey and Ziliak and infcne’‘infcnets()’‘ets fsgiiac, tts, Fts, n cisurd’Alsearches All ‘statistical squared.’ significant,’ ‘chi ‘statistically and test,’ are: ‘F 1980–1999. keywords test,’ years The ‘t the columns. significance,’ for two of are first ‘test(s) test(s),’ the ‘significance of significance,’ terms the to according Letters rl.p.r/.Sace oee parts covered Searches prola.aps.org/). eiie30 7934 24 9799 14,485 3308 3445 16 14 167 11 9 8 6828 26 1447 website. 896 JSTOR the on 4127 948 link Browse journals the at Science found General is 7 category 156 the 11 each of in Searches journals the journals of Science the list General A except (www.jstor.org/). 7 80 348 searches journals All Science Notes: General 7 2707 journals journals Science Science General General 7 7 299 medicine biology journals Science General 7 cosmology biological or biology chemistry chemistry geology astronomy physics hmsr ilg,biological, biology, chemistry al .Terltv s fsm ttsia emnlg nsinii journals. scientific in terminology statistical some of use relative The 2. Table two the of period (the 1999 in through the 1980 faced of period the surveys for problems hand. journals to academic observational of problem archive the the to in appropriate science tools real differences chooses between Each difference but a fields. not different science, and reflects, use cargo-cult Ziliak tool 54; of and pattern and skewed 46 A pp. sciences. 2002, 357–358; p. 1999, 669). p. McCloskey 2004b, (cf. McCloskey …’ matter in magazine results the the their in reporting too biologists they so many that significance; geologists; state statistical 533) of p. tests (2004a, do use McCloskey criticism examining and literary ‘by Ziliak of found parts 1). p. have certain 2002, or (McCloskey anthropology …’ or it) geology or physics way (the ntne al hw htfrasac fsvnGnrlSinejunl (a journals For Science found. General is keywords seven keywords. the of the of of search one one a the used journal any articles (not the for which includes articles that in that of shows category use) number 2 a the Physical Table American of of instance, the counts instances for provides of website the search number on The version journals. online its Society’s searched we so JSTOR, erhfra es n statistical one least at for Search n u not but and ogte oeeiec nti on epromdasac fteJSTOR the of search a performed we point this on physical evidence some the gather in To tool standard a are tests significance wrong; is McCloskey i sidctdb h rsneo h tlatoeo h ttsia ewrsa modified as keywords statistical the of one least at the of presence the by indicated is hit A . keyword: hsclReview Physical eiie rmedical or medicine, mrcnEooi Review Economic American ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal odce n2 uy20 nthe on 2005 July 20 on conducted hsclReview Physical h hsclReview Physical The 9Eooisjunl 581,0 53 18,200 23 9598 37,441 journals Economics 39 Review Economic American 8670 journals Science General 7 Review Physical eea cec oras1918 7 1988 139 journals Science General 7 -,SeilTpc:AclrtrBeams Accelerator Topics: Special A-E, Science 24 odce n3Jn 05uigteJTRArchive JSTOR the using 2005 June 3 on conducted nHt oa rilsRto(%) Ratio articles Total Hits in The ie yZla n clse) 3 of 23% McCloskey), and Ziliak by cited eotdi clse n iik1996 Ziliak and McCloskey in reported hsclReview Physical htpyiit prxmtl never approximately physicists that Science hsclRve nieArchive Online Review Physical 131,7 14 14,670 2113 9 9541 1945 796 Science r escermne on clear-minded less are sntacie by archived not is and , h hmssand chemists the , hsclReview Physical (http:// 27 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 28 nytmtcsml hthglgt h ag fapiain fstatistical of applications of range the sciences. highlights hard the that in significance sample unsystematic of tests use never ‘approximately data (1990, scientists the significance.’ such economics, statistical al. that for d-d conclusion rates earlier et the use the contradict duplicate than articles flatly Southon smaller to substantially the 5–8 is While attempts of added). example (emphasis that 9% no however, One about noted, revealed that be family. experiments should shows significance ‘It pages) R1900): the p. 480 only from – keywords 2270 the through of issue R1791 that of inspection Visual agaeadLtrtr oras n,frcmaio,3 cnmc orasand, journals we Economics addition, 63 39 journals, In comparison, the History 533). for separately, p. 57 and, 2004a, 32; journals, journals, p. Literature McCloskey Anthropology but and 1995a, 19 and Language keywords, for Ziliak the (McCloskey searches 112; p. of keyword appear 1998, performed one ‘medical,’ 49; least 1, or at pp. and 2002, ‘medicine,’ searches ‘chemistry’ tarred performed ‘biological,’ which also has we ‘biology,’ in McCloskey suggest economics, Since articles as search nature. brush count chemistry in same that the medical the with or in medicine biological and found are biology papers them actual of family many the significance that ‘physics’ of and the inspection ‘medicine,’ An in ‘geology,’ appears. word ‘cosmology,’ ‘chemistry,’ a search ‘biology,’ Each which ‘astronomy,’ journals. in Science General articles seven the counts of searches additional performed we smrhct infcnetss h ubro isfrthe for are hits 3.3, of section 26%. number in or the saw 3820 If we tests, tests. as significance significance intervals, of to confidence use isomorphic since real level,’ the on ‘confidence bounds name. include lower the we they are use estimates not that our do that shows they underlines if evidence even significance the statistical But of at concept but the the journals, over use physicists measured general when the chemistry, over as measured rate 8% same at the statistical keywords 14%, significance uses journals, of statistical science to general users the related general over heavy measured when McCloskey’s Physics, relatively cosmology. examined. are confirmed. biology sciences also and is other this tests of medicine user significance the heavier a that highest is work The than Economics surprising. 53%. the impression perhaps of is, apparatus rate of 4% hit understood, and a most 1% with statistical typically as Economics, is Since high in term as found History. that are is way rates rate in the hit use in the and that scientific of fact not Literature rates the is lowest fields and these The Language in disciplines. published in various in found significance are statistical of use relative ula hsc,teiseo oebr19,js sa xml)adcnimta its that confirm and example) an as the just of 1990, copy November pages of a 2,263 issue at the look Physics, to Nuclear you invite I r hs xmlso ra cec’ h iain ipae nTbe3aean are 3 Table in displayed citations The science’? ‘real of examples these Are ogtasneo h eaiedfeecsi s fsgiiac et ewe fields, between tests significance of use in differences relative the of sense a get To clse 19,p 5)ofr pcfcchallenge: specific a offers 357) p. (1999, McCloskey that out points 552) p. (2004, Horowitz McCloskey, and Ziliak to reply In for 16% to physics for 8% from range They sciences? ‘hard’ the about what But the of idea some give does it but one, crude a obviously is filter search The oti o igeueof use single a not contain mrcnEooi Review Economic American ttsial significant statistically ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. do hsclReview Physical hsclReview Physical … s h ae tl,Hrwt’ observation Horowitz’s Still, name. the use ttsia significance statistical . eto lxsaoebackground’ above fluxes neutron vrinC a,teoeabout one the say, C, (version wihi atrn rmpage from runs fact in (which hsclReview Physical hsclReview Physical epai added) (emphasis … plus n ftewords the of one . ie to rises not Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 ..MDwl.‘NwPyisfo h ENCollider,’’ CERN the from Physics ‘‘New McDowell. J.D. a .Gge n ila .Sno.‘Caatrzto fI’ ocncAtvt yInfared by Activity Volcanic Io’s Singh of S. ‘‘Characterization Sinton. M. William and Goguen D. Jay hmsK ase.‘GmaRy n etio sCust h rgno ihEeg omcRays,’’ Cosmic Energy High of Origin the to Clues as Neutrinos and Rays ‘‘Gamma Gaisser. K. Thomas ..Suhn ..Sak ..Vgl n ..Wdigo.‘UprLmtfrNurnEiso from Emission Neutron for Limit ‘‘Upper Waddington. J.C. and Vogel, J.S. Stark, J.W. Southon, J.R. ..Ce,Aa .Co,adAJF ehrl,‘A xeietlTs fteIvreSur a of Law Square Inverse the of Test Experimental ‘‘An Metherell, A.J.F. and Cook, H. Alan Chen, Y.T. ..Molina M.J. ..Bennett, C.L. ahy .Wae.‘GoantcSclrVrainadFudMto tteCr Surface,’’ Core the at Motion Fluid and Variation Secular ‘‘Geomagnetic Whaler. A. Kathryn ed .Feda.‘MauigCsooia Parameters,’’ Cosmological ‘‘Measuring Freedman. L. Wendy rcGwsradJsp ik ‘xrcigPioda est Fluctuations,’’ Density Primordial ‘‘Extracting Silk. Joseph and Gawiser Eric Powder to Method Entropy Maximum the of ‘‘Applications Bricogne. G. Shankland, K. Gilmore, C.J. w xeiet. ute eal r ie natbeof table a in given are of values details calculated and Further observed experiments.’ the between two difference the of significance ..Oive ‘ eea oeta nryFnto o itmcMolecules,’’ Diatomic for Function Energy Potential General and ‘‘A 1980s Ogilvie. the J.F. from significance statistical use that sciences physical the from 1990s. articles of Examples 3. Table ..Bradley M.P. xoeto itnei h miia a fgaiaini xcl spredicted the as 2 whether exactly is testing ‘The of gravitation law: at of tests law inverse-square use aimed empirical A Newton’s authors the 1798) compared. The in by of Cavendish’s be distance 64). p. of on must update experiment (1984, exponent (an phenomenon experiment al. torsion-pendulum laboratory same et delicate famous a the Chen evaluate be is to significance to example identified nice hypothesized be found observations particularly are are must multiple which tests signals in what contexts Significance which experimental of typical. in in or are contexts noise background 3 non-experimental Table against in in cited frequently papers most the if economists, ae) n hs r sdt sesteacrc fteosre measurements. observed the of accuracy the assess to used are these and paper), lmnayParticles? Elementary A Series o.42 o 83 eebr18,p.373–400. pp. 1985, December 9 1823, no. 402, vol. Gases,’’ Polarimetry,’’ Sciences Physical Science Cold rvtto tRneo . m,’’ 0.1 of Range at Gravitation 235–246. pp. 1982, Sciences . ppb,’’ 0.2 taopei Clouds,’’ Stratospheric h ainlAaeyo cecso h ntdSae fAmerica of States United the of 4773. Sciences of Academy National the hlspia rnatoso h oa oit fLondon of Society Royal the of Transactions Philosophical 287–300. pp. London of Society cecso h ntdSae fAmerica of States United the of Sciences 97–111. pp. 1993, July 8 1914, no. ifato n lcrnCrystallography,’’ Electron and Diffraction o 38 8My19,p.1405–1411. pp. 1998, May 28 5368, no. o opyiit,ceit,adgooit s ttsia infcne utlike Just significance? statistical use geologists and chemists, physicists, do How d-t tal. et e eis o.27 o 96 ac 90 p 1049–1076. pp. 1990, March 2 4946, no. 247, vol. series, new , o.36 o 1492, no. 306, vol. , , rceig fteRylSceyo London of Society Royal the of Proceedings Fusion,’’ ahmtcladPyia Sciences Physical and Mathematical hsclReview Physical tal et tal. et tal. et ‘hreSrpigadDlydAtinzto nDul hre oso h Noble the of Ions Charged Doubly in Autoionization Delayed and Stripping ‘‘Charge Science ‘hsclCeityo h H the of Chemistry ‘‘Physical . ‘enn rpMaueet fteMse of Masses the of Measurements Trap ‘‘Penning o.34 o 86 uy18,p.47–68. pp. 1984, July 9 1806, no. 394, vol. , ‘cetfcRslsfo h omcBcgon xlrr(COBE),’’ Explorer Background Cosmic the from Results ‘‘Scientific , hsclReview Physical eisA Series pi 96 p 213–232. pp. 1986, April 8 , e eis o.20 o 71 coe 95 p 65–69. pp. 1985, October 4 4721, no. 230, vol. series, new , Science ,vl 3 4510–4513. 83, vol. C, , h at’ oe t tutr,EouinadMgei Field, Magnetic and Evolution Structure, Its Core: Earth’s The ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal ahmtcladPyia Sciences Physical and Mathematical e eis o.21 o 17 0Spebr19,p.1418–1423. pp. 1993, September 10 5127, no. 261, vol. series, new , rceig fteRylSceyo London of Society Royal the of Proceedings ,vl 1 oebr19,p.R1899–R-1900. pp. 1990, November 41, vol. C, o.9,n.1 aur 98 p 2–7. pp. 1998, January 6 1, no. 95, vol. , rceig:Mteaia n hsclSciences Physical and Mathematical Proceedings: o.44 o 1827, no. 404, vol. , 2 SO t 4 ts a enapidt sals the establish to applied been has -test /HNO , eisA Series rceig fteRylSceyo London of Society Royal the of Proceedings 3 , /H eisA Series rceig fteNtoa cdm of Academy National the of Proceedings 2 , ytm mlctosfrPolar for Implications System: O ahmtcladPyia Sciences Physical and Mathematical o.9,n.1,1Jn 93 p 4766– pp. 1993, June 1 11, no. 90, vol. , Cs o.38 o 73 coe 1981, October 8 1773, no. 378, vol. , ursadLpos h New The Leptons: and Quarks , , Rb ahmtcladPhysical and Mathematical and , t tss(al ftheir of 7 (Table -tests , Science eisA Series rceig fteRoyal the of Proceedings Na ihUncertainties with e eis o.280, vol. series, new , , ahmtcland Mathematical rceig of Proceedings 0August 20 D o.442, vol. , F / F , 29 in ( , Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 eerhr ontmsaetesaitclsgiiac racrc fthe of of strength the error of this accuracy noise. measure a commit the in as to or systematically significance argued relative statistical economists of signal we significance tests that a (As use evidence do measurement. they statistical little But physical is either.) the the there of 2, significance mistake section the for not their measurement which do The in researchers function? applications. domain different. loss scientifically a a practical nonetheless define in physicists are most these but theories should affect different, How between practically to not discriminate are small predictions to too aims discrepancies experiment of physics 30 oiatpoesoa pno a hfe ihrsett ayeconomic many to to respect influential. respect with not with example, is for role evidence: shifted key empirical a accumulated has play on they based are opinion tests phenomena which the in professional that evidence either mean Dominant empirical not that does hypothesis or substantive as useless a against (such or non-statistical for decide and – against errors normality) militate detect from to it departures used does breaks). as significance nor structural statistical (such noise of statistical the tests statistical both are ignoring dominate which warrant sometimes tests, error however, specification of McCloskey not, sources (cf. other the does important of That more noise be part 112). p. to only 1996, prove tell error Ziliak variability of and the sources in-sample that to other on examples) often based reports where other models story, are error there 364–365) the less pp. simplified which but much that (of time overlap, (1999, fact phenomenon always through this not varied Stigler attributes do only He measures not one. converge. different have the light modest around of intervals role speed a confidence The the decisive. be is of to of measures – likely tests individual experiment weight is – or the significance significance measurement statistical to single of of test no contribute one but no measurements therefore, law, and, The inverse-square the model. about statistical assess evidence The to strength, assumed not point. the signal used the are to of beside experiments gravitation torsion-pendulum rather of measures al.’s theory be et the as to Chen in appears appropriately 1991). tests Summers challenge statistical seen significantly cf. Magnus’s 543; are which and p. 2004a, Keuzenkamp tests tests McCloskey significance significance and and McCloskey Ziliak contains When (see 111–112; proposition’ to pp. that some 1996, about economists paper think Ziliak economists challenged ‘a that way famously of the changed 20–21) example pp. an (1995, give Magnus and Keuzenkamp or signal perfect cosmology (as and impossible. small which situations influences in are experimental effects disturbing in (as where from in experiments) shielding situations frequently or torsion-pendulum al.’s possible most in et not Chen arise most with is situations experimentation used when Such the among is economics) critical. in differences less testing material not is in much lies Significance extraction but and difference tools, disciplines. scientific cosmology, The as the than economics. tests significance and frequently of medicine, less legitimacy biology, them than use frequently chemistry and physics nti ae si ubro te ae htw xmndi eal the detail, in examined we that cases other of number a in as case, this In to importance the illustrates it because part, in interesting, is example The oudrtn htamaueo ttsia infcnede o fisnature its of not does significance statistical of measure a that understand To hypothesis, maintained their of source the as McCloskey Acknowledging which in hierarchy a is there clearly but tests, significance uses science Real e se per ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. 25 u oass h ult fteosrain relative observations the of quality the assess to but , Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 .Acmlt ito h mte aeswt noain oteciei ficuincnbe can inclusion of criteria the to annotations with papers omitted the of list complete A 3. .MCokyadZla 19,p.9–0)ofra nlsso cnmtistxbosas textbooks econometrics of analysis an offer 99–101) pp. (1996, Ziliak and McCloskey 2. of edition second the include topic this on writings Other 1. Kansas. International of Notes University the of the of at University seminar the conference departmental to a 2006 presented and the Method, was Economic paper Workshop, Perez, for the Network Stephen Macroeconomics We when Henry, drafts. Davis received earlier John Paul on comments California, and comments Greene, the valuable assistance; Clinton for appreciate research referees, also Mayer, for anonymous four Brady, Thomas and down Ryan Backhouse, Cameron, broken thank: Roger scores Colin We individual survey. the A. for 1990s Teller, and the survey us for providing 1980s question for their Ziliak, by from Stephen scores with individual and, discussions the email with for McCloskey Deirdre thank We Acknowledgements this: is message Our prophet: Testament Old the of simplicity direct the has advice her And is economics in testing significance of state the of apocalyptic: analysis McCloskey’s now? Apocalypse 5 regard. this in physics from as measurements different or significance their curve, statistical of Phillips of errors accuracy tests the the the used of assess that nature Papers to the prices. tools money, aggregate for of demand stickiness the the of elasticity interest the o ofgr.Btwe iuigdntuesaitclsgiiac.(clse 1992, (McCloskey significance. statistical use don’t figuring when 361) But p. figure. go 204) You econometricians p. 2000, many and 24 and at p. change statisticians 1994, not cf. does Eminent work 361, practice p. the … scientific 1992, all Yet wasted … (McCloskey bankrupt. them be all. been of to All significance has again. statistical over declare elders done be the to marginal have of Its fittings econometric all. all at Almost anything 242) p. worth 1992, not (McCloskey is zero. estimation, is against product as testing, Econometric ruet rcnlsos naymaigu a.A edsusblw hi survey their below, discuss we As our (or way. results meaningful their change any necessarily in would papers conclusions) relevant or the of arguments all include to failure www.econ.duke.edu/ at found s oee,aalbei eto fteeris okn-ae eso ftecurrent the of version working-paper earliest www.econ.duke.edu/ analysis the at 2005) of their analysis August Our 3 it. 20 Since section omitted (dated well have in article we as yes. space, text available save original To however, is, the flaws it. of is, about its examination claims question textbook, Ziliak’s detailed and econometrics very this McCloskey a (1972) as through Johnston’s to only of demonstrated be reading answer can a the on heavily that concentrates (2004a,b). McCloskey evidence McCloskey and 2005), Ziliak additional 2002, and 1999, (1996), Ziliak 1997, and 1995a,b, McCloskey 1994, (1984), 1992, Zecher (1985b, and McCloskey as well as otiue otewih fteeiec nteecss cnmc sno is Economics cases. these in evidence the of weight the to contributed , aecmot hnsaents aka l that all as dark so not are things comfort, Take ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal , d9rsac.tl ed o ent ml httheir that imply to mean not do We kdh9/research.html. eaiet h sue oe of model assumed the to relative , kdh9/research.html. h Rhetoric The MCoky1998) (McCloskey . 31 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 0 iikadMCoky(04,p.5051 opeeymsedEgwrh hnthey when Edgeworth, misread completely 530–531) pp. (2004a, McCloskey and Ziliak on 10. found is terms, economic in couched specification, different a of discussion similar A 9. is elasticities the finding of way their ‘But continue: 541) p. (2004a, McCloskey and Ziliak 8. fit poorly ‘a that agree We consistent. fully not is position McCloskey’s and Ziliak 7. 32 .A diinlrfrnet ttsia infcne(ab 94 .35 setal states essentially 315) p. 1984, (Darby significance statistical to reference additional An 6. 19 of out 7 scored (1987) to Spiegelman and than Woodbury rather articles. ranges 182 in are there authors 1980s, group the to For chose McCloskey and 5. Ziliak why unclear is It 4. httedfeecswr o ttsial infcn yhsuulsadr ftot three to two of standard usual his found by Edgeworth significant trouble.’ importance, statistically the economic not repaid were of subject differences matter the the the if that on inquiry, the real Jevons is, a of contradicting ‘There of continuation from indication the Far concluded: slight require a to Edgeworth still enough says; deviations. – Jevons law Professor standard as difference,’’’ 1.1 great ‘‘no by therefore, terminology, modern in t ofdneitra nEuto 1) hrfr o rgeigayrassmn fthe of reassessment any triggering not therefore (12), Equation economic in interval confidence its eua nraei h oueo il,h on httemaso h is n second and first the of means (0 modulus To the the times that importance. 0.8 found about economic) to he equal bills, (i.e. amount an of by practical volume differed quarters science of the of that in test not argued increase a he are conducted secular Rather he it. that view, for differences that him underwrite criticize about or judgment small Jevons’s per care dispute economically 3 not of may is did difference 4% But Edgeworth a to important.’ neglected. condition, be 3% be in be well that difference must purposes may a less practical Jevons of much discovery for and ‘Professor the cent. may science, writes: difference of purposes a 208) commercial p. the such of for as (1885, that volume economically, the mean Edgeworth in an to 4% quarters. ignoring understood or for different 3% Jevons of in McCloskey corrects difference bills he significant and Edgeworth statistically, that Ziliak a Yes, assert to but they significance. opposed when significance, statistical and point statistical matters’, to his ‘size and attend miss that position economic must the not we between takes who that distinguishes Jevons as is argues It al., who ally. an Edgeworth et as him enlist Becker to on attempt scored reported is simulation having small a McCloskey’s 1), Table of and the 409. 17 p. on question Ziliak (see bearing simulations no any despite has conducting point And, this significance. on statistical 408. p. wrong and economic or confuse right they are whether al. that of et Be question Becker errors. central particular whether the may, out pointing it by as substantiated attacks never is heart charge The and erroneous.’ the aspirin if between correlation And insignificant. a statistically as the below). aspirin though if advocate 3.2 positive, not attacks were section surely heart would (see McCloskey matters against effect direction. insignificant prophylactic measured its a the does statistically of of so size 2004a, matters, are recounting the ‘oomph’ that McCloskey inaccurate estimates is attacks her and when heart from on (Ziliak even aspirin draws of nothing’ McCloskey affect the that say of conclusion study would the sign Yet, expected 539). p. the with correlation htacag nseiiainddntrsl na siaeo h ofiin on coefficient the of estimate an in result not did specification place in change (last a 1 that score and (1995) Wantz Grossman, and Becker, percentile). Bernheim percentile); 1st 137 percentile); are the (58th (30th there and 8 1990s, 6 the score score For (1992) questions. (1994) for 19 Murphy tie Blinder only yes seven-way Darby are and 3 a less). there reports Bernanke latter but sheet or (the article, articles. score percentile 7 Darby’s Ziliak’s 4th for scored and or no McCloskey 41% 8th 17 because and the (i.e. arises in 1980s ambiguity is The the and place). 3 in last or papers 2 of either scored percentile (1984) 41st the ranked and emblematic. only are is reach scores. papers individual they these report conclusions of omission any The that sample. flawed the critically of so regardless meaningless, are implementation and design nepeaino htequation. that of interpretation ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. statistical infcne fe orcigfra for correcting after significance: : 8 ~ 2 : 5 CD p 10 ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi t outside : 5 ) or, Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 7 lit n rne 20,p 4)mk h on httedge fbnigo trih in starlight of bending of of degree the that sort point the make 549) preferred p. (2004, Granger own and Elliott forgone 17. have his to seems but on evidence, historical assessing limits in ideas statistical use the did Newton explain 16. to term this to used used be Savage can (BIC) 15. Criterion Information Bayesian the as this that such noted criteria, she when Information correct more 14. and moderate more was 202) p. (1985b, McCloskey 13. 2 codn otesuyi usin teetra aaMntrn or fthe of Board Monitoring Data external ‘the question, in study the to According 12. and Ziliak also see 112; p. (1998, McCloskey’s of object an is who Fisher, Aylmer Ronald 11. isstepit lit n rne ee adta edd o edte vnhave even they need nor did, he that said never Granger statistics use and mechanics. not Elliott did Newton’s matter Eddington point: to from that the riposte small Einstein’s 668–669) misses too pp. distinguish (2004b, was McCloskey’s to 1919 and the served in Ziliak eclipse of nevertheless the quality yet of practically, the observations assessing famous 394–397). Eddington’s in pp. Arthur gain 1999, (Stigler personal Mint practical the and of of citation Master problem while a the coinage of to for development them 84–86 applying late pp. natural 2000, ‘a Keuzenkamp as (see regarded discussion). ideas’ he Neyman-Pearson which the increases. the statistics, size nested, Bayesian sample are as tests personalist level which significance in the situation lower an to acts in below. essentially since 3.5 BIC preferences, section also idiosyncratic see such – zero’ avoid ‘literally is as hypothesis true mean, same the when the not hold attacks not need does disease. heart claim cardiovascular ‘positive’ are from cardiovascular But nor deaths from overall insignificant email). deaths or statistically cited strokes overall and as in previously large thing or the it, … takes in aspirin strokes McCloskey the cited of between (both number difference in significant disease’ no groups however, placebo was, and ‘[t]here that 1994), February eeisfo h oto lcb ru’ad nanw eot( report aspirin’s news withhold a should in they and, feel group’ not placebo did control ethically the they from statements that benefits the positive the so by of results misled editor the apparently the found was McCloskey to McCloskey (email letter based 2003). study a 31, McCloskey original in July added). p the Hoover, emphasis than D. by 1, rather Kevin placebo Table sources to measured the secondary 262, on and p. significance interpretation aspirin 1988, her statistical al., the et between a (Hennekens Board infarction significant having The myocardial found. as been total had in group infarction difference myocardial the fatal and cites nonfatal on effect beneficial h admzdaprncmoeto h ra,piaiybcueo a of because of primarily termination trial, early passage. the the of same recommending component of the aspirin step in randomized unusual the 5% the than took Study other Health sizes Physician’s test of number a of implications the discusses considered ( be to from using imply moving is in 531) convention, p. ground to deviation shifted (2004a, formally sentence least, McCloskey thus a at one and or, in are himself whether or Ziliak the deviation contradicted 44). 5% has judging p. standard Fisher of 1946, that in the understands size (Fisher twice [a limit significant’ exceeding take as clearly a regarded to Deviations as convenient not. scorn, is or 1.96] ‘it significant special of size: 5% value 542–544) customary critical the of 530–531, pp. nature conventional 2004a, scientifically.) McCloskey (Edgeworth neglected signals. be because not faint that, difference should detecting small significant, on economically statistically an value is of high the it example a reflects another provides law placed a 201) real p. who it, a (1885, researcher put of a indication now for slight might a region the it we repay about as that not caveat would that, His enough it man. intuition significant if practical even was a further, believed, of investigate trouble he to scientists result, economic the encourage might nevertheless, modulus; the times xodEgihDictionary English Oxford omlyregarded formally formally ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal eiiin4b.Orve srifre ytefc htFisher that fact the by reinforced is view Our 4.b). definition , ntesneo ‘[] ue’ ne omlcircumstances’ normal under rule’’; a ‘‘‘[A]s of sense the in e nln ora fMedicine of Journal England New ntenx.W iwFse sdcaigapragmatic a declaring as Fisher view We next. the in p vleo .1cudfl noteacceptance the into fall could 0.21 of -value , .00 .. extremely i.e., – 0.00001 D Consumer FDA ttn ht‘researchers that stating statistically convenient January– extreme 33 Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 5 diinleiec sfudi tly(04,wodsussteueo infcnetssin tests significance of use the discusses who (2004), Staley in found is evidence Additional test,’ 25. ‘significance significance,’ ‘statistical significant,’ ‘statistically were words key The 24. 3 aamnn sdsusdi eali ovr(95 n ovradPrz(00.O the On (2000). Perez and Hoover and (1995) Hoover in for detail in economists discussed berates is 32) mining 30, pp. Data (2002, 23. McCloskey moods, other In inconsistent. is She 22. hn .. ok .. n ehrl,AJF 18) ‘nEprmna eto h Inverse the of Test Experimental ‘‘An (1984), A.J.F. Metherell, and A.H., Cook, Y.T., Chen, 1 h erhtrswr:‘ofdneitra()’‘ro ads, 2(w)sadr error(s),’ standard (two) ‘2 band(s),’ Stigler ‘error see interval(s),’ statistician, ‘confidence a were: as terms Peirce search on The 1998); 21. (1994, Wible see research, of economy the On 20. 34 ln,RM 19) ‘h fet fDul-ln essSnl-ln Reviewing: Single-Blind versus Double-Blind Signaling of Dividend Effects the of ‘‘The Test (1991), Tax-Based ‘‘A of R.M. Channels (1995), Blank, the A. and Wantz, Rate and Funds Federal B.D., ‘‘The Bernheim, (1992), A.S. Blinder, and Cigarette of B.S., Analysis Bernanke, Empirical ‘‘An (1994), K.M. Murphy, and M., Grossman, G.S., Becker, References 9 ena 18,p )cts soeo ayeape,maueet fDrcsnumber, Dirac’s of measurements examples, many than of one worldly as cites, more 7) p. is (1985, Feynman economics 19. that claims certainly 37–38) pp. (2002, McCloskey 18. e.A(ahmtcladPyia cecs,3410) 47–68. 394(1806), Sciences), Physical and m,’’ (Mathematical 0.1 A of Range Ser. at Gravitation of Law Square xeietlEiec nthe in Evidence Experimental Hypothesis,’’ Transmission,’’ Monetary Addiction,’’ iheeg hsc ncnieal detail. considerable in ‘chi physics and high-energy ‘‘F-test,’ ‘t-test,’ significance,’ 1990s. of the ‘tests in tests,’ survey squared.’ their ‘significance on significance,’ performance of worst of of ‘test third out evaluation the 3 favorable – only straightforward survey the scores a 1990s of regressions, is the growth light in which cross-country in 19 article, to still, omitted (1992) extreme-bounds oddly is of Renelt’s 140), More application and p. 1980s. Levine (1985a, the McCloskey analysis, to by of extreme-bounds analysis cited survey extreme-bounds favorably the of itself from is application which (1981) demand, LeRoy’s money and Cooley Similarly, 1990s. the from articles exclude which surveys Ziliak’s Proceedings and and Papers McCloskey to comparable strictly 18)atceadMAer aa,adVlkrs(95 eutl oho hc appeared Leamer’s which of both both omit rebuttal, (1985) communication) Volcker’s the and personal specification in Pagan, 2004a, Ziliak McAleer, of Oddly, and for article analysis mining. (1985a, sheets (1983) data (1978) involve (score McCloskey Both Leamer’s McCloskey hand, analysis.’ and ‘extreme-bounds favourably other (1983) the cites his and on 201) search p. mining; 1985b, data 139–140; condemns pp. McCloskey hand, one metaphysics. dismissing 2(w)sadr eito()’Tenmesfrthe for numbers The deviation(s).’ standard the (two) ‘2 for but the implies, than it accurate that 10). loss more chap. (1999, or observation. times gain and five theory any of about for conformity not result, the theory, of this hair. relevant beauty human of a the of of accuracy width the predictions to the Angeles Los cites and York Feynman New between distance the measuring hc r cuaet h 1hdcmlpae(oepeiey 4 precisely, (more place decimal 11th the to accurate are not which though art,’ abstract of kind that. ‘a for as but disdained science, be than a to as intuitive.’ general not or regards informal, she more which formal, mathematics, is – analysis to functions of objections loss mode many any that about to out ‘equally points argument apply 218) p. the (1968b, since Kruskal statistics. implicitly, it believed mrcnEooi Review Economic American mrcnEooi Review Economic American mrcnEooi Review Economic American My ubr n hre articles. shorter and numbers (May) mrcnEooi Review Economic American ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. mrcnEooi Review Economic American n etteciei o hi uvyo rilsfo the from articles of survey their for criteria the meet and 43,396–418. 84(3), , 53,532–551. 85(3), , rceig fteRylSceyo London of Society Royal the of Proceedings 24,901–921. 82(4), , mrcnEooi Review Economic American ’ 15,1041–1067. 81(5), ’’, 6 10 2 9 ) h qiaetof equivalent the %), statistical inference r not are , Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 rli,H-. n edy ..(01,‘Cmue uoaino General-to-Specific of Automation ‘‘Computer (2001), D.F. Hendry, and H.-M., Krolzig, eznap .. n ans .(95,‘O et n infcnei Econometrics,’’ in Significance and Tests ‘‘On (1995), J. Magnus, and H.A., Keuzenkamp, (2000), H.A. Keuzenkamp, ooiz ..(04,‘Cmet n‘ieMatters’,’’ ‘Size on ‘‘Comments (2004), J.L. Horowitz, an .. adbr,SE,adSoka,AC 19) ‘h oiieEooisof Economics Positive ‘‘The (1996), A.C. Stockman, and S.E., Landsburg, J.A., Kahn, (1972), in J. Johnston, Data,’’ the ‘‘Confronting (2006), S. Johansen, ovr .. n ee,SJ 20) ‘rt n outesi rs onr Growth Country Cross in Robustness and ‘‘Truth (2004), S.J. Perez, and K.D., Hoover, ovr ..(95,‘I ees fDt iig oePeiiayTogt,’in Thoughts,’’ Preliminary Some Mining: (2001), K.D. Data Hoover, of Defense ‘‘In (1995), K.D. Hoover, ovr .. n ee,SJ 20) ‘he tiue oad aaMining,’’ Data Towards Attitudes ‘‘Three (2000), S.J. Perez, and the K.D., and Hoover, Encompassing Reconsidered: Mining ‘‘Data (1999), S.J. Perez, and K.D., Hoover, ovr ..(94,‘Eooerc sOsrain h ua rtqeadteNtr of Nature the and Critique Lucas The Observation: as ‘‘Econometrics (1994), K.D. Hoover, enkn,CH,e l 18) ‘rlmnr eot idnsfo h sii Component Aspirin the from Findings Report: ‘‘Preliminary Instrument (1988), New al. A et Selection: C.H., Model Hennekens, by ‘‘Automatic (2004), Reconsidered’ H.-M. Mining Krolzig, ‘Data and on D.F., ‘‘Improving Hendry, (1999), H.-M. Krolzig, Econometrics,’’ and in D.F., Science?,’’ in Hendry, or Alchemy Approach ‘‘Econometrics: (1980), Probability D.F. ‘‘The Hendry, (1944), T. Haavelmo, (1964), R.W. Fogel, (1946), R.A. Fisher, (1985), R.P. Feynman, deot,FY 18) ‘ehd fStatistics,’’ of ‘‘Methods (1885), F.Y. Edgeworth, lit,G,adGagr ...(04,‘Eautn infcne omnso ‘Size on Comments Significance: ‘‘Evaluating (2004), C.W.J. Granger, and G., Elliott, Economist ab,MR 18) ‘h ..Poutvt lwon aeo ttsia Myopia,’’ Statistical of Case A Slowdown: Productivity U.S. ‘‘The (1984), M.R. Darby, oly .. n eo,SF 18) ‘dniiainadEtmto fteMoney the of Estimation and ‘‘Identification (1981), S.F. LeRoy, and T.F., Cooley, oe eeto Procedures,’’ Selection Model ora fEconometrics of Journal nvriyPress. University Methodology,’’ 287–300. pp. Press, University Cambridge Cambridge: Colander, 551–554. Regressions,’’ 242–257. pp. Mayer Elgar, Thomas Edward of Aldershot: Honour Sheffrin, in S.M. Essays and Economics: Hoover of K.D. Methodology the and Monetarism eea-oSeii praht pcfcto Search,’’ Specification to 167–191. Approach General-to-Specific cnmcMethodology Economic cnmti Inference,’’ Econometric 262–264. fteOgigPyiin’Hat Study,’’ Health Physicians’ Ongoing the of Science,’’ Social for Perez,’’ S.J. and Hoover K.D. Science 1–115. 12(Supplement), Press. Hopkins Johns Baltimore: Boyd. and Matters’,’’ 181–217. pp. Britain, of Society Statistical Royal mrcnEooi Review Economic American Demand,’’ 831–866. 2de.,Ofr:Bakel p 1–28. pp. Blackwell, Oxford: ed.), (2nd 20) ‘infigNothing?,’’ ‘‘Signifying (2004), ora fSocio-Economics of Journal mrcnEooi Review Economic American xodBlei fEooisadStatistics and Economics of Bulletin Oxford ora fEooi Theory Economic of Journal alod n mrcnEooi rwh sasi cnmti History Econometric in Essays Growth: Economic American and Railroads cnmti Methods Econometric ttsia ehd o eerhWorkers Research for Methods Statistical aslt nMacroeconomics in Causality lcoa Studies Electoral ueyYur oig r Feynman Mr. Joking, You’re Surely () 195–210. 7(2), , 71,5–24. 67(1), , ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal ora fEooercMethodology Econometric of Journal rbblt,Eooerc,adTruth and Econometrics, Probability, 43,301–322. 74(3), , cnmtisJournal Econometrics ora fEooi yaisadControl and Dynamics Economic of Journal 3 525–544. 23, , 35,547–550. 33(5), , 15,825–844. 71(5), , h Economist The 2de.,NwYr:McGraw-Hill. York: New ed.), (2nd 81,64–76. 68(1), , e nln ora fMedicine of Journal England New abig:CmrdeUiest Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: , uie oueo h ttsia Society Statistical the of Volume Jubilee otWlainMacroeconomics Walrasian Post () 202–218. 2(2), , 7(30 aur 1 04 71. 2004, 31, January 370(8360) , ora fSocio-Economics of Journal e ok Norton. York: New , 65,765–798. 66(5), , 1t d) dnug:Oliver Edinburgh: ed.), (10th cnmtisJournal Econometrics () 65–80. 1(1), , cnmtis lhm or Alchemy Econometrics: abig:Cambridge Cambridge: , Econometrica 25(6–7), , ora of Journal 318(4), , d D. ed. , 2(2), , 3(5), , eds. , 35 , , , Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 emr ..(93,‘LtsTk h o u fEconometrics,’’ of out Con the Take ‘‘Let’s (1983), E.E. Leamer, (1978), E.E. Leamer, in Field,’’ The ‘‘Statistics: (1968b), W.H. Kruskal, in Significance,’’ of ‘‘Tests (1968a), W.H. Kruskal, 36 eie . n eet .(92,‘ASniiiyAayi fCosCutyGrowth Cross-Country of Analysis Sensitivity ‘‘A (1992), D. Renelt, and R., Levine, oel ..(93,‘Dt Mining,’’ ‘‘Data (1983), M.C. Lovell, clse,DN (1994a), D.N. McCloskey, clse,DN 19) ‘te hnsEul h akutyo ttsia Significance,’’ Statistical of Bankruptcy The Equal: Things ‘‘Other (1992), D.N. McCloskey, (1996), D. Mayo, clse,DN 18b,‘TeLs ucinHsBe ili:TeReoi of Rhetoric The Mislaid: Been Has Function Loss of ‘‘The out (1985b), Con the D.N. Take McCloskey, Will ‘‘What (1985), (1985a), P.A. D.N. Volker, McCloskey, and A.F., Pagan, M., McAleer, clse,DN 19) ‘te hnsEul utDidesLte oaGraduate a to Letter Deirdre’s Aunt Equal: Things ‘‘Other Significance,’’ (1997), Statistical D.N. of McCloskey, Analysis,’’ Outstrips ‘‘Computation Insignificance (1995b), D.N. McCloskey, ‘‘The (1995a), D.N. McCloskey, Persuade,’’ Economists ‘‘How (1994b), D. McCloskey, clse,DN (2002), D.N. McCloskey, (2000), D. McCloskey, ogn ..(1990), M.S. Morgan, in Parity,’’ Power Purchasing of Economics,’’ Success in ‘‘The (1984), Statistics J.N. and Zecher, and Mathematics D.N., McCloskey, with Trouble ‘‘The (2005), D.N. McCloskey, Economist Her to Letter Open Cassandra’s Equal: Things ‘‘Other (1999), D.N. McCloskey, (1998), D.N. McCloskey, io,GE 19) ‘rgesv oeln fEooi ieSre:TeLSE The Series: Time Economic of Modelling ‘‘Progressive (1995), Regressions,’’ G.E. of Error Mizon, Standard ‘‘The (1996), S.T. Ziliak, and D.N., McCloskey, Vl 5,e.D il,NwYr:McilnadFe rs,p.206–224. pp. Wiley. Press, John Free Boston: and Macmillan York: New 238–250. Sills, pp. D. Press, ed. Free 15), and (Vol. Macmillan York: New Sills, D. ed. 14), (Vol. Regressions,’’ 31–43. 73(1), atr cnmcJournal Economic Eastern infcneTests,’’ Significance Press. Wisconsin Econometrics,’’ Press. Chicago Student,’’ American 15–32. 1(1), Press. University ihgnPress. Michigan Press. 107–170. pp. Kluwer, Dordrecht: Hoover, Rotterdam. University Erasmus and Chicago Illinois, of University typescript, unpublished www.prickly-paradigm.com/paradigm4.pdf. Colleagues,’’ Press. Wisconsin ehdlg,’in Methodology,’’ Economic of Literature Bureau Economic National the and 1821–1931 Press 121–170. Chicago Standard, pp. of Research, Gold University Classical Chicago: Schwartz, the on Retrospective 7() 32–33. 272(4), , atr cnmcJournal Economic Eastern atr cnmcJournal Economic Eastern mrcnEooi Review Economic American ro n h rwho xeietlKnowledge Experimental of Growth the and Error mrcnEooi Review Economic American areooerc:Dvlpet,Tnin,adProspects and Tensions, Developments, Macroeconometrics: pcfcto erhs dHcIfrnewt oeprmna Data Nonexperimental with Inference Hoc Ad Searches: Specification 41,97–114. 34(1), , h itr fEooercIdeas Econometric of History The mrcnEooi Review Economic American o ob ua huha Economist an Though Human be to How h ertSn fEconomics of Sins Secret The h htrco Economics of Rhetoric The nweg n esaini Economics in Persuasion and Knowledge 83,359–361. 18(3), , h htrco Economics of Rhetoric The ..Hoe n ..Siegler M.V. and Hoover K.D. eiwo cnmc n Statistics and Economics of Review 32,241–244. 23(2), , 53,357–363. 25(3), , 24,942–963. 82(4), , 53,293–307. 75(3), , nentoa nyoei fSca Sciences Social of Encylopedia International nentoa nyoei fSca Sciences Social of Encylopedia International 52,201–205. 75(2), , 2de.,Mdsn I nvriyof University WI: Madison, ed.), (2nd hcg,I:PikyPrdg Press. Paradigm Prickly IL: Chicago, , abig:CmrdeUniversity Cambridge Cambridge: , ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal 1te.,Mdsn nvriyof University Madison: ed.), (1st d.MD od n A.J. and Bordo M.D. eds. , cetfcAmerican Scientific n ro:Uiest of University Arbor: Ann , mrcnEooi Review Economic American abig:Cambridge Cambridge: , hcg:Uiest of University Chicago: , 51,1–12. 65(1), , 7() 26. 272(7), , d K.D. ed. , ora of Journal Scientific A , , , Downloaded By: [Duke University] At: 16:25 16 April 2008 o y,A,adMn ..(2004), E.Y. Mun, and A., Eye, Von (1986), S.M. Stigler, pns .(95,‘O hoyTsigi cnmtis oeigwt Nonexperimental with Modeling (2004), Econometrics: K.W. in Staley, Testing Theory ‘‘On (1995), A. Spanos, aae ..(94[1972]), (1954 L.J. Savage, ere ..(98,‘Nt nteTer fteEooyo eerh’ in Research,’’ of Economy (1934), C.S. the Peirce, of Theory the on ‘‘Note (1958), C.S. Peirce, ht,H 19) ‘ ossetMdlSlcinPoeueBsdon Based Procedure Selection Model Consistent ‘‘A (1990), H. White, Macroeconomics,’’ Empirical in Illusion Scientific ‘‘The (1991), L.H. Summers, (1999), S.M. Stigler, oto,JR,Sak .. oe,JS,adWdigo,JC 19) ‘pe ii for Limit ‘‘Upper (1990), J.C. Waddington, and States,’’ J.S., United Vogel, the J.W., in Stark, Mobility J.R., Southon, Income ‘‘Intergenerational (1992), G. Solon, iik .. n clse,DN 20b,‘Sgiiac Redux,’’ ‘‘Significance (2004b), D.N. McCloskey, and S.T., Ziliak, Regressions of Error Standard The Matters: ‘‘Size (2004a), D.N. McCloskey, and S.T., Ziliak, to Employers (2003), and J. Workers Woodward, to ‘‘Bonuses (1987), R.G. Spiegelman, and S.A., Woodbury, 135–160. 1(1), Research’’, of Economy (1998), Peirce’s J.R. Sanders Wible, ‘‘Charles (1994), J.R. Wible, olrde ..(04,‘SaitclSgiiac sO,To omn n‘ieMatters’,’’ ‘Size on Comment Too: OK, Is Significance ‘‘Statistical (2004), J.M. Wooldridge, Experimentation Data,’’ adr Peirce Sanders 76–88. pp. Press, Belknapp MA: Cambridge, Philosophy, awh J Erlbaum. NJ: Mahwah, ora fEconomics of Journal Press. Belknap MA: Cambridge, eto msinfo Cold from Emission Neutron index.php?issues_id in published the in Illinois’’, 513–530. in Trials Randomized Unemployment: Reduce Methodology 369–383. Econometric pp. Press, in Clarendon Readings Oxford: Series: Economic Modelling Economics Mattered Really cnmcReview Economic ora fSocio-Economics of Journal Press. University Oxford mrcnEooi Review Economic American ora fEconometrics of Journal 35,665–675. 33(5), , o.7o the of 7 Vol. d.C athreadP es,Cmrde A eka Press. Belknap MA: Cambridge, Weiss, P. and Hartshorne C. eds. , cnJunlWatch Journal Econ odn Routledge. London: , abig:CmrdeUiest Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: , h cnmc fSine ehdlg n pseooya fEconomics if as Epistemology and Methodology Science: of Economics The 23,393–408. 82(3), , rgaimadPragmaticism, and Pragmatism ttsiso h Table the on Statistics h vdnefrteTpQak betvt n isi Collaborative in Bias and Objectivity Quark: Top the for Evidence The 5 h itr fSaitc:Maueeto netit eoe1900 Before Uncertainty of Measurement Statistics: of History The aigTig apn hoyo aslExplanation Causal of Theory A Happen: Things Making 32,129–148. 93(2), , 3). h onain fStatistics of Foundations The ora fEooi Methodology Economic of Journal olce aeso hre adr Peirce Sanders Charles of Papers Collected 35,577–579. 33(5), , d-t 71,189–226. 67(1), , Fusion,’’ nlzn ae gemn:Mnfs aibeMethods Variable Manifest Agreement: Rater Analyzing ,’’ () 3–5.www.econjournalwatch.org/main/ 331–358. 1(2), , ora fSocio-Economics of Journal abig,M:HradUiest Press. University Harvard MA: Cambridge, , hsclReview Physical o.5o the of 5 Vol. e ok Dover. York: New , mrcnEooi Review Economic American ,4,R1899–R1900. 41, C, , olce aeso Charles of Papers Collected 35,5756(also 527–546 33(5), , d ...Granger, C.W.J. ed. , d ..Burks, A.W. ed. , ora fSocio- of Journal m Tsig’ in -Testing,’’ Scandinavian cec and Science Oxford: , American 77(4), , 37 , ,