Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
Signifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University, Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler, April 2007 ộẹirộrẹ2@Mk?^ụ> $zi|iạk@rọọ$ẹvẹlt.ẹộụAbstractAfter William Gosset (1876-1937), the "Student" of Student's t, the best statisticians have distinguished economic (or agronomic or psychological or medical) significance from merely statistical "significance" at conventional levels. A singul Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerar exception among the best was Ronald A. Fisher, who argued in the 1920s that statistical significance at the .05 level is a necessary and sufficientSignifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
condition for establishing a scientific result. After Fisher many economists and some others—but rarely physicists, chemists, and geologists, who selSignifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University, Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerdicine, sociology, psychology, and the like. Hoover and Siegler, despite a disdainful rhetoric, agree with the logic of our case. Fisherian "significance." they agree, is neither necessary nor sufficient for scientific significance. But they claim that economists already know this and that Fisherian Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler tests can still be used for specification searches. Neither claim seems to be true.Our massive evidence that economists get it wrong appears to holdSignifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
up. And if rhetorical standards are needed to decide the importance of a coefficient in the scientific conversation, so are they needed when searchingSignifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University, Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerssors Hoover and Siegler (2008) for their scientific seriousness, responding as none before have to our collective 40 person-years of ruminations on significance testing in economics and in certain other misled sciences.1 We are glad that someone who actually believes in Fisherian significance has f Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerinally come forward to try to defend the status quo of loss-functionless null-hypothesis significance testing in economics. The many hundreds of commeSignifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
nts on the matter we have received since 1983 have on the contrary all agreed with us, in essence or in detail, reluctantly or enthusiastically.Yet FiSignifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University, Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerhousands of significance-testing econometric colleagues, who presumably do not agree with US, were scientific mice, unwilling to venture a defense. Or that they were merely self-satisfied—after all, they control the journals and the appointments. One eminent econometrican told US with a smirk that h Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglere agreed with US, of course, and never used mechanical t-testing in his own work (on this he spoke the truth). But he remained unwilling to1 And our tSignifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
hanks to Philippe Burger of the Department of Economics of the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, for a very helpful discussionSignifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University, Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerate in March, 2007.3teach the McCloskey-Ziliak point to his students in a leading graduate program because "they are too stupid to understand it." Another and more amiable but also eminent applied econometrican at a leading graduate program, who long edited a major journal, told US that he "tended t Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglero agree" with the point. "But," he continued, "young people need careers," and so the misapplication of Fisher should go on and on and on.We do not enSignifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
tirely understand, though, the hot tone of the Hoover and Siegler paper, labeling our writings "tracts" and "hodge-podges" and "jejune" and "wooden" aSignifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University, Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler"is a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing." Hoover and Siegler clearly regard US as idiots, full of sound and fury. They therefore haven’t listened self-critically to our argument. Their tone says: why listen to idiots? Further, they do not appear to have had moments Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerof doubt, entertaining the null hypothesis that they might be mistaken. Such moments lead one, sometimes, to change ones mind—or at any rate they do iSignifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
f ones priors are non-zero. Our reply is that significance testing, not our criticism of it, signifies nothing. As Lear said in another play, "nothingSignifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University, Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and SieglerFrench participle with a deliberately chosen male gender). For the past fifteen years the case that economists do in fact commit the Fisherian error, and that t statistics signify nearly nothing, has been built by McCloskey always together with Ziliak, now in fuller form as The Cult of Statistical S Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerignificance: How the standard Error is Costing Jobs, Justice, and Lives (2008). The book contains inquiries mainly by Ziliak into the criticism of t tSignifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
ests in psychology and medicine and statistical theory itself, in addition to extensive new historical research by Ziliak into "Student" (William SealSignifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University, Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerveloped an anti-economic version of it, of Student’s t.2 More than half of the time that McCloskey has been writing on the matter it has been "Ziliak and McCloskey."Whatever the source of the McCloskey-itis in Hoover and Siegler, however, it does simplify the task they have set themselves. Instead o Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerf having to respond to the case against Fisherian significance made repeatedly over the past century by numerous statisticians and users2 s. T. ZiliakSignifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
and D. N. McCloskey, The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error is Costing Jobs, Justice, and Lives fAnn Arbor: University of MichiSignifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University, Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglermics, Roosevelt University, 100 pp., April 20, 2007, http://faculty.roosevelt.edu/Ziliak.5of statistics— ignorable idiots full of sound and fury such as "Student" himself, followed by Egon Pearson, Jerzy Neyman, Harold Jeffreys, Abraham Wald, w. Edwards Deming, Jimmie Savage, Bruno de Finetti, Kenne Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerth Arrow, Allen Wallis, Milton Friedman, David Blackwell, William Kruskal [whom Hoover and Siegler quote but misunderstand], David A. Freedman, KennetSignifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
h Rothman, and Arnold Zellner, to name a few—they can limit their response to this apparently just awful, irritating woman. An economic historian. NotSignifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University, Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerot of understandable heat. If McCloskey and Ziliak are right—that merely "statistical," Fisherian significance is scientifically meaningless in almost all the cases in which it is presently used, and that economists don't recognize this truth of logic, or act on it—then econometrics is in deep troub Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerle.Most economists appear to believe that a test at an arbitrary level of Fisherian significance, appropriately generalized to time series or rectanguSignifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Siegler
lar distributions or whatever, just is empirical economics. The belief frees them from having to bother too much with simulation and accounting and exSignifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University, Signifying Nothing Reply to Hoover and Sieglerample, it frees them from having to provide the units in which their regressed variables are measured.6Signifying Nothing:Reply to Hoover and Sieglerby Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen T. ZiliakUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and Roosevelt University,Gọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook