Sound and fury: McCloskey and significance testing in economics

Published

Journal Article

For more than 20 years, Deidre McCloskey has campaigned to convince the economics profession that it is hopelessly confused about statistical significance. She argues that many practices associated with significance testing are bad science and that most economists routinely employ these bad practices: 'Though to a child they look like science, with all that really hard math, no science is being done in these and 96 percent of the best empirical economics ' (McCloskey 1999). McCloskey's charges are analyzed and rejected. That statistical significance is not economic significance is a jejune and uncontroversial claim, and there is no convincing evidence that economists systematically mistake the two. Other elements of McCloskey's analysis of statistical significance are shown to be ill-founded, and her criticisms of practices of economists are found to be based in inaccurate readings and tendentious interpretations of those economists' work. Properly used, significance tests are a valuable tool for assessing signal strength, for assisting in model specification, and for determining causal structure.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Hoover, KD; Siegler, MV

Published Date

  • March 1, 2008

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 15 / 1

Start / End Page

  • 1 - 37

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1469-9427

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 1350-178X

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1080/13501780801913298

Citation Source

  • Scopus