Almost Never Use Tests of Statistical Significance -- Use Instead Oomph, the Scrutiny of Substantive Differences
Existence, arbitrary statistical significance, philosophical possibilities uncalibrated to the sizes of important effects in the world are useless for science. Yet in medical science, in population biology, in much of sociology, political science, psychology, and economics, in parts of literary study, there reigns the spirit of the Mathematics or Philosophy Departments (appropriate in their own fields of absolutes). The result, argues economist Deirdre McCloskey
, has been a catastrophe for such sciences, or former sciences. The solution is simple: get back to seeking oomph. It would be wrong, of course, to abandon math or statistics. But they need every time to be put into a context of How Much, as they are in chemistry, in most biology, in history, and in engineering science.
A related interview with McCloskey (PhD, Economics, Harvard) can be found on the ICPSR website
McCloskey is a Visiting Michigan Institute for Teaching and Research in Economics (MITRE) scholar. This free webinar, sponsored by MITRE, the UM Department of Economics
and ICPSR, is open to the public. Please forward this invitation to all with interest.
Title: Almost Never Use Tests of Statistical Significance: Use Instead Oomph, the Scrutiny of Substantive Differences
Date: Monday, October 28, 2013
Time: 2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT
No registration is required; visit this webinar link
and enter as a Guest.