Scholarly Comments on Academic Economics

Reply to Deirdre McCloskey and Stephen Ziliak on Statistical Significance


Read this article

Access statistics
7,311 article downloads
6,236 complete issue downloads
Total: 13,547


Deirdre McCloskey and Stephen Ziliak have graciously replied to my essay titled “Ziliak and McCloskey on Statistical Significance: An Assessment.” Only a few of McCloskey and Ziliak’s extensive criticisms are valid or partially valid, and these relate to points that can readily be dropped without materially weakening my conclusions. In particular, McCloskey and Ziliak do not engage my estimate of how often or how egregiously economists confuse statistical significance and oomph.

This article is a response to Statistical Significance in the New Tom and the Old Tom: A Reply to Thomas Mayer by Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. Ziliak (EJW, September 2012).

Response to this article by Stephen T. Ziliak and Deirdre N. McCloskey: We Agree That Statistical Significance Proves Essentially Nothing: A Rejoinder to Thomas Mayer (EJW, January 2013).