Location of Repository

Sound and Fury: McCloskey and Significance Testing in Economics

By Kevin D. Hoover and Mark V. Siegler


For about twenty 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 their work. Properly used, significance tests are a valuable tool for assessing signal strength, for assisting in model specification, and for determining causal structure.statistical significance, economic significance, significance testing, regression analysis, econometric methodology, Deirdre McCloskey, Neyman-Pearson testing

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles



  1. (1954). [1972]) The Foundations of Statistics.
  2. (1990). A Consistent Model Selection Procedure Based on m-testing,”
  3. (2004). Analyzing Rater Agreement: Manifest Variable Methods.
  4. (2005). and Significance Testing in
  5. (2004). Automatic Model Selection: A New Instrument for
  6. (1987). Bonuses to Workers and Employers to Reduce Unemployment: Randomized Trials in Illinois,
  7. (2001). Causality in Macroeconomics. Cambridge:
  8. (1994). Charles Sanders Peirce's
  9. (2001). Computer Automation of General-to-Specific Model Selection Procedures,”
  10. (2005). Confronting the Data,” unpublished typescript,
  11. (1999). Data Mining Reconsidered: Encompassing and the General-to-Specific Approach to Specification Search,”
  12. (1994). Econometrics as Observation: The Lucas Critique and the Nature of Econometric Inference,
  13. (1980). Econometrics: Alchemy or Science?,” in Hendry Econometrics: Alchemy or Science, 2 nd edition.
  14. (2004). Evaluating Significance:
  15. (1999). Improving on ‘Data Mining Reconsidered’ by K.D. Hoover and S.J.
  16. (1994). Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics. Cambridge:
  17. (1983). Let’s Take the Con Out
  18. (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation.
  19. (2005). McCloskey and Significance Testing in
  20. (1995). On Tests and Significance in
  21. (1995). On Theory Testing in Econometrics: Modeling with Nonexperimental Data,”
  22. (1992). Other Things Equal:
  23. (1997). Other Things Equal: Aunt Deirdre’s Letter to a Graduate Student,”
  24. (1999). Other Things Equal: Cassandra’s Open Letter to Her Economist Colleagues,”
  25. (2000). Probability, Econometrics, and Truth. Cambridge:
  26. (1995). Progressive Modelling of Economic Time Series: The LSE Methodology,”
  27. (1985). QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
  28. (1964). Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History.
  29. (2004). Signifying nothing?” The Economist,
  30. (2004). Size Matters: The Standard Error
  31. (1978). Specification Searches: Ad Hoc Inference with Nonexperimental Data.
  32. (2004). Statistical Significance is OK, Too:
  33. (1999). Statistics on the Table.
  34. (1985). Surely You’re Joking,
  35. (1998). The Economics of Science: Methodology and Epistemology As If Economics Really Mattered.
  36. (1991). The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing:
  37. (2004). The Evidence for the Top Quark: Objectivity and Bias in Collaborative Experimentation. Cambridge:
  38. (1992). The Federal Funds Rate and the
  39. (1990). The History of Econometric Ideas. Cambridge:
  40. (1986). The History of Statistics: Measurement of Uncertainty Before
  41. (1985). The Loss Function Has Been Mislaid: The Rhetoric of Significance Tests,”
  42. (1985). The Rhetoric of Economics, 1st edition.
  43. (1998). The Rhetoric of Economics, 2 nd edition.
  44. (1991). The Scientific Illusion in
  45. (2002). The Secret Sins of Economics. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press. Available online at http://www.prickly-paradigm.com/paradigm4.pdf McCloskey, Deirdre N.
  46. (1943). The Statistical Implications of a
  47. (1984). The Success of Purchasing Power Parity,”
  48. (1984). The U.S. Productivity Slowdown: A Case for
  49. (2000). Three Attitudes Towards Data Mining,”
  50. (1990). Upper Limit for Neutron Emission from Cold d-t Fusion,” Physical Review C,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.