Kindle Price: $25.49

Save $4.46 (15%)

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

eBook features:
  • Highlight, take notes, and search in the book
  • In this edition, page numbers are just like the physical edition
You've subscribed to ! We will preorder your items within 24 hours of when they become available. When new books are released, we'll charge your default payment method for the lowest price available during the pre-order period.
Update your device or payment method, cancel individual pre-orders or your subscription at
Your Memberships & Subscriptions

Buy for others

Give as a gift or purchase for a team or group.
Learn more

Buying and sending eBooks to others

  1. Select quantity
  2. Buy and send eBooks
  3. Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.

Kindle app logo image

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives (Economics, Cognition, And Society) Kindle Edition

4.3 4.3 out of 5 stars 52 ratings

“McCloskey and Ziliak have been pushing this very elementary, very correct, very important argument through several articles over several years and for reasons I cannot fathom it is still resisted. If it takes a book to get it across, I hope this book will do it. It ought to.”


—Thomas Schelling, Distinguished University Professor, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, and 2005 Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics


“With humor, insight, piercing logic and a nod to history, Ziliak and McCloskey show how economists—and other scientists—suffer from a mass delusion about statistical analysis. The quest for statistical significance that pervades science today is a deeply flawed substitute for thoughtful analysis. . . . Yet few participants in the scientific bureaucracy have been willing to admit what Ziliak and McCloskey make clear: the emperor has no clothes.”


—Kenneth Rothman, Professor of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Health


The Cult of Statistical Significance shows, field by field, how “statistical significance,” a technique that dominates many sciences, has been a huge mistake. The authors find that researchers in a broad spectrum of fields, from agronomy to zoology, employ “testing” that doesn’t test and “estimating” that doesn’t estimate. The facts will startle the outside reader: how could a group of brilliant scientists wander so far from scientific magnitudes? This study will encourage scientists who want to know how to get the statistical sciences back on track and fulfill their quantitative promise. The book shows for the first time how wide the disaster is, and how bad for science, and it traces the problem to its historical, sociological, and philosophical roots.


Stephen T. Ziliak is the author or editor of many articles and two books. He currently lives in Chicago, where he is Professor of Economics at Roosevelt University. Deirdre N. McCloskey, Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is the author of twenty books and three hundred scholarly articles. She has held Guggenheim and National Humanities Fellowships. She is best known for How to Be Human* Though an Economist (University of Michigan Press, 2000) and her most recent book, The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce (2006).

Read more Read less
Next 5 for you in this series See full series
Total Price: $247.54
By clicking on the above button, you agree to Amazon's Kindle Store Terms of Use

More like The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives (Economics, Cognition, And Society)
Loading...

Editorial Reviews

Review

"The Cult of Statistical Significance has virtues that extend beyond its core message. It is clearly written and should be accessible to those who have neither formal training in statistics nor a desire to secure any. It is full of examples that illustrate why it is the strength of relationships and not their statistical significance that mainly matters."
—Richard Lempert,
Law and Social Inquiry

-- Richard Lempert ― Law and Social Inquiry Published On: 2009-01-01

"A clear trade-off: how much confidence [in a result] is "enough" depends on the costs of further research and the benefits of extra precision. Ziliak and his co-author Deirdre McCloskey argue in The Cult of Statistical Significance that most academic disciplines have forgotten this trade-off . . . A sharp line for statistical significance makes no sense, and it has a cost."
—Tim Harford,
The Financial Times

-- Tim Harford ― Financial Times Published On: 2009-02-07

"McCloskey and Ziliak have been pushing this very elementary, very correct, very important argument through several articles over several years and for reasons I cannot fathom it is still resisted. If it takes a book to get it across, I hope this book will do it. It ought to."
—Thomas Schelling, Distinguished University Professor, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland and 2005 Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics

-- Thomas Schelling Published On: 2007-11-26

"If not Fisherian significance, what should be the Holy Grail of statistics? Ziliak and McCloskey . . . answer: "Oomph." We should identify quantities that matter and measure them, not merely determine whether they can be distinguished from the null (meaning no effect) at some predetermined likelihood level.  The validity of this point I take to be virtually self-evident. Yet statistical tests that ignore quantity remain pervasive, as the authors demonstrate through quantitative analyses of the contents of some very prestigious journals of economics, psychology, and medicine."
—Theodore Porter,
Science

-- Theodore Porter ― Science Published On: 2009-06-05

"Persuading professionals that their procedures are wrong is a long and lonely task. McCloskey, joined later by Ziliak, has been conducting such a crusade against the misuse of significance testing for over 25 years. This book presents their argument, gives lots of examples of the adverse consequences of misuse, and provides some history of the controversy, which dates from the origins of mathematical statistics."
—Ron P. Smith,
Journal of Economic Issues

-- Ron P. Smith ― Journal of Economic Issues Published On: 2009-01-01

"[Steve Ziliak and Deirdre McCloskey] explain to us why the misunderstanding of statistical significance has lead to bad government policy making and how one particularly famous brewery employed the technique to improve the pints we enjoy today."
—Tim Harford, BBC

-- Tim Harford ― BBC Published On: 2009-01-23

"The book is a model of scholarship, transparent in its method, wide-reaching in its disciplinary expertise, and highly literate, including occasional haiku poems and humor such as, 'If the variable doesn't fit/you may not have to acquit.' The authors convincingly argue that environmental quality, jobs, and even lives are at stake."
—M. H. Maier, Glendale Community College,
Choice

-- M. H. Maier ― Choice Published On: 2009-10-21

"With humor, insight, piercing logic and a nod to history, Ziliak and McCloskey show how economists—and other scientists—suffer from a mass delusion about statistical analysis. The quest for statistical significance that pervades science today is a deeply flawed substitute for thoughtful analysis. This hollow pursuit, kept alive by mechanical, conformist thinking, has led to grave and obvious errors. Yet few participants in the scientific bureaucracy have been willing to admit what Ziliak and McCloskey make clear: the emperor has no clothes."
—Kenneth Rothman, Professor of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Health

-- Kenneth Rothman Published On: 2007-10-20

"Despite appearing to be a book of limited appeal - it is after all a book that looks at a set of statistical techniques - it is one that has immense social implications. We live in an age where ideologies have largely been cast aside and instead we are governed increasingly by a class of politicians and civil servants who aim for 'evidence-based' policy-making. When that evidence is based on statistically significant results that ignore any quantification of results then we all have reason to pay attention."
London Book Review

-- NA ― London Book Review Published On: 2008-12-23

"What is important is a shift of emphasis away from a dichotomous world of true and false towards a recognition of "oomph". This is what the presented book tries to achieve. It is also fun to read, rich with historical information and an excellent reminder of what empirical work of any sort is all about."
—Walter Kramer,
Stat Papers
-- W. Kramer ―
Stat Papers

About the Author

Stephen T. Ziliak is the author or editor of many articles and two books. He currently lives in Chicago, where he is Professor of Economics at Roosevelt University.

Deirdre N. McCloskey, Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is the author of twenty books and three hundred scholarly articles. She has held Guggenheim and National Humanities Fellowships. She is best known for How to Be Human* Though an Economist (University of Michigan Press, 2000), and her most recent book, The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce (2006).

Product details

  • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PH91LCL
  • Publisher ‏ : ‎ University of Michigan Press (February 11, 2010)
  • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 11, 2010
  • Language ‏ : ‎ English
  • File size ‏ : ‎ 1010 KB
  • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
  • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
  • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
  • Print length ‏ : ‎ 341 pages
  • Page numbers source ISBN ‏ : ‎ 0472050079
  • Customer Reviews:
    4.3 4.3 out of 5 stars 52 ratings

About the authors

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

Customer reviews

4.3 out of 5 stars
4.3 out of 5
52 global ratings

Top reviews from the United States

Reviewed in the United States on June 21, 2009
I was enrolled in a graduate program in the Social Sciences when I bought the book. On my own I had deduced that the over reliance on null hypothesis rejection methodology as was taught to me had some significant logical flaws in it.

The authors of the book did I fine job of fleshing out the logical errors in the system. They pointed out an additional error that I hadn't found yet.

This is an excellent book that raises some very profound questions about scientific practice in modern academia. It should be read by graduate students in any discipline that fancies itself to be "scientific."

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the book is that it was well written and entertaining as well as informative, even though it was written by two economists! That factoid makes the book significant by itself!!!!!!
9 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on May 30, 2008
Tests of statistical significance are a particular tool which is appropriate in particular situations, basically to prevent you from jumping to conclusions based on too little data. Because this topic lends itself to definite rules which can be mechanically implemented, it has been prominently featured in introductory statistics courses and textbooks for 80 years. But according to the principle "if all you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail", it has become a ritual requirement for academic papers in fields such as economics, psychology and medicine to include tests of significance. As the book argues at length, this is a misplaced focus; instead of asking "can we be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the size of a certain effect is not zero" one should think about "how can we estimate the size of the effect and its real world significance". A nice touch is the authors' use of the word oomph for "size of effect".

Misplaced emphasis on tests of significance is indeed arguably one of the greatest "wrong turns" in twentieth century science. This point is widely accepted amongst academics who use statistics, but perversely the innate conservatism of authors and academic journals causes them to continue a bad tradition. All this makes a great topic for a book, which in the hands of an inspired author like Steven Jay Gould might have become highly influential. The book under review is perfectly correct in its central logical points, and I hope it does succeed in having influence, but to my taste it's handicapped by several stylistic features.

(1) The overall combative style rapidly becomes grating.

(2) A little history -- how did this state of affairs arise? -- is reasonable, but this book has too much, with a curious emphasis on the personalities of the individuals involved, which is just distracting in a book about errors in statistical logic.

(3) The authors don't seem to have thought carefully about their target audience. For a nonspecialist audience, a lighter 
How to Lie With Statistics  style would surely work better. For an academic audience, a more focused [logical point/example of misuse/what authors should have done] format would surely be more effective.

(4) Their analysis of the number of papers making logical errors (e.g. confusing statistical significance with real-world importance) is wonderfully convincing that this problem hasn't yet gone away. But on the point "is this just an academic game being played badly, or does it have harmful real world consequences" they assert the latter but merely give scattered examples, which are not completely convincing. If people fudge data in the traditional paradigm then surely they would fudge data in any alternate paradigm; if one researcher concludes an important real effect is "statistically insignificant" just because they didn't collect enough data, then won't another researcher be able to collect more data and thereby get the credit for proving it important? Ironically, they demonstrate the harmful real world effect is of the cult is non-zero but not how large it is ......
127 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on September 14, 2012
For me this was a matter of life and death.

My cholesterol numbers were bad, and though I told the doc I wouldn't take a statin, he looked at the chart and clucked, "with LDL this high you're at risk for pancreatitis. You'd better get those numbers down." And he wrote a prescription.

I filled it, and as usual I got the dozen pages of onionskin paper with the pharmacological details. I decided to read them, and I was flabbergasted. Translated into English, this is what it said:

We have done a Big Study, oh yes we have, and we have Numbers: look at them!
And we have analyzed those numbers and we have Conclusions. And we used
Statistics, so you know we must be right.

The first thing you should know is that people who took our drug died at a higher
rate than people who didn't. 11% higher approximately. And if this were a court,
we'd have to say that the drug is guilty on the preponderance of the evidence,
because we figure the odds are about 4 to 1 that the drug did it. But our Statistics
tells us to ignore anything that is not beyond reasonable doubt, and 4-to-1 doesn't
make it, so we think you should ignore the fact that the drug does more harm than good.

What you should focus on is that it lowers your LDL. We showed that beyond reasonable
doubt - the odds are at least 22 to 1. And low LDL is good. So our advice is, take it.

That is what it said.

The question for us all is, How did we come to this? How can the scientific hierarchy, from the FDA down to kindly Doctor Brown, think that it is anything but crazy to take this drug? Am I looking to have "his LDL was low" on my tombstone? Is there no judgement that would say that costing lives is very bad, and lowering LDL is of no value of itself if it doesn't save lives?

The message of the book is that things are every bit as bad as you might fear.

The authors show how the pursuit of science has been shunted off into a search for "statistical significance" which has nothing whatever to do with scientific significance or importance. They give a pretty good explanation for how things got so messed up.

This book is of the highest possible importance for anyone who uses or teaches statistical inference. But anyone who knows a little statistics should definitely read the book, and anyone who knows a little math might enjoy it.

For it is engagingly written. Think of it, a book on statistical significance! Could anything be more dull? But the book has the pace of a potboiler. There are witty jokes, haikus, appeals to outrage and to laughter. There is a hero (William Gosset, aka Student) and a villain (the evil Sir Ronald Fisher). There are fables and parables.

Most importantly, there is the truth: that science based solely on rejecting the null hypothesis is sterile, unconvincing even to its practitioners, and extremely costly, both in money and in lost time and lives. You will weep when you see how thoroughly the sciences that use statistics (such economics, psychology, sociology, medicine) have come under the grip of a Statistical-Academic Complex that persists in significance tests because significance tests get you promoted, never mind the real scientific value.

The problem is real. Mistakes are being made daily because of sloppy statistics. And remember that drug that the doc wanted me to take to ward off pancreatitis? In the fine print the study showed that the drug didn't help people with pancreatitis either. Ba-dum.
14 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on January 24, 2022
If you are into the subject (frequentist versus Bayesian) this is a comprehensive look at the subject. It covers the technical flaws of the frequentist position, the lack of editorial and journalistic 'movement' toward more rational scientific approaches, and quite a bit of the developmental history and characters. I cannot give this more than 3 stars, though, because parts of it read like a rant, there are injected cynical statements that obfuscate important points, it is somewhat repetitive, and undefined neologisms appear here and there (beta-man, sizeless stare...). This book is sometimes more about what the authors want to say than what they should be trying to convey.

Top reviews from other countries

Zac Ayshos
5.0 out of 5 stars A bit repetitive but full of insights
Reviewed in Germany on December 22, 2014
I was very pleased with this book. It has a nice philosophical and transdisciplinary approach to statistics with a light emphasis on economics. Sometimes the authors appear a bit too self righteous for my taste, but its nevertheless worth reading and very interesting. I definitly got some new ideas!
One person found this helpful
Report
ST_A_CH
3.0 out of 5 stars Size does matter
Reviewed in Germany on February 8, 2015
This book is useful for the casual reader of medical, psychological and economic research reports. It is well written in a lively language, and it is interesting from a history of science point of view; in practical terms, however, it is a but lenghty: Any reader will readily understand the main issue: statistical significance by itself is insufficient for decision making without information on the measured or expected effect size.

Report an issue


Does this item contain inappropriate content?
Do you believe that this item violates a copyright?
Does this item contain quality or formatting issues?