Response to Burgman and Regan: the elephant in the rhetoric on info-gap decision theory

The formal, rigorous assessment of IGDT in Sniedovich (2012) reveals that this theory's central pillar, namely its robustness model, is a reinvention of a well-established model of local robustness, known universally as radius of stability (circa 1960). As a matter of fact, this robustness model is a simple model derived from Wald's famous maximin paradigm (circa 1940). This means that had there been any gap in the state of the art that IGDT could have possibly presumed to fill, this gap had already been filled decades ago, well before IGDT was even contemplated. The conclusion therefore is that there is no gap in the state of the art that IGDT does fill, or can possibly fill, or is called upon to fill. Also, since IGDT is based on a definition of local robustness, the theory is unsuitable for the treatment of a severe uncertainty of the type that this theory claims to address. Therefore, since the theory claims to be particularly suitable for the treatment of a severe, unbounded uncertainty, the inevitable conclusion is that this theory constitutes a voodoo decision theory par excellence. Fig. 1 speaks for itself so that no amount of rhetoric can explain this fact away. The Letter's attempt to brush off valid, rigorous, well-documented criticism of IGDT as "... haggling over terminology ..." is yet another attempt to avoid dealing with the elephant in the IGDT room. Nothing will be gained from the use of misleading rhetorics to argue that ideas, models, techniques, approaches, etc., that go back to the 1940s and 1960s, are IGDT innovations. But more than this, what good can come of misapplications of these ideas in applied ecology and conservation biology? In the Appendix, I address a more intriguing question, namely: QUESTION 2: What could possibly be the rationale that motivated a search for a (nonexistent) gap in the state of the art for IGDT to fill?