How do Info-Gaps proponents justify the use of the theory in cases where the complete region of uncertainty is unbounded?
Answer-36: They don’t. They become entangled in greater contradictions! I recently pointed out to an Info-Gap expert the absurd in making a big deal about Info-Gap’s unbounded region of uncertainty when all that Info-Gap in effect does is to conduct a local analysis around a single estimate. The expert’s reply: but we are interested only in what happens in the region around the estimate!!!! This reply speaks volumes about the messy thinking that pervades this entire enterprise. Clearly, Info-Gap users have not thought through the theory’s various claims, much less have they attempted to fit them all into one coherent view. So, while reciting the standard Info-Gap rhetoric about severe uncertainty, some use it for the purpose of determining the robustness of decisions in the neighborhood of a given estimate without realizing that this is not what Info-Gap decision theory was designed for. But most of all, this reply is symptomatic of the muddled treatment of “Severe Uncertainty” in the
Related Questions
- How do Info-Gaps proponents justify the use of the theory in cases where the complete region of uncertainty is unbounded?
- What is the significance of Info-Gap allowing its complete region of uncertainty to be unbounded?
- Don Info-Gap proponents essentially argue that "anything goes" under severe uncertainty?
