John A List,
Zacharias Maniadis,
Fabio Tufano
Cited by*: 0 Downloads*: 3
In his comment, Mitesh Kataria (2014) makes three main points about a
specific part of our paper (Maniadis, Tufano, and List 2014), namely about Tables
2 and 3. In our paper, we employ these tables in order to illustrate the idea that
very inconclusive post-study probabilities that a tested phenomenon is true may
result from novel, surprising findings. The main arguments in Kataria (2014) are
the following:
First, if P(H0) is unknown, as is often the case with economic
applications, the post-study probability can lead to even worse
inference than the Classical significance test, depending on the quality
of the prior. Second, the simulation in Maniadis et al. (2014) ignores
previous assessments of P(H0) and instead utilizes a selective empirical
setup that favors the use of post-study probabilities. [Third,]
contrary to what Maniadis et al. (2014) argue, their results do not allow
for drawing general recommendations about which approach is the
most appropriate. (Kataria 2014, abs.)
We believe that our work might have been misunderstood by Kataria.
Moreover, it seems that some of his claims are not supported by relevant empirical
evidence.