Ecol Appl. 2014 Jan;24(1):229-33. doi: 10.1890/13-1096.1.
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?
在斯尼德维奇（2012 年）的正式、严格的 IGDT 评估中发现，该理论的核心支柱，即其稳健性模型，是对一个普遍被称为稳定性半径（约 1960 年）的成熟局部稳健性模型的重新发明。事实上，这个稳健性模型是一个源自 Wald 著名的极大极小范例（约 1940 年）的简单模型。这意味着，如果 IGDT 有可能填补的技术现状差距，那么这个差距在几十年前就已经被填补了，远在 IGDT 被考虑之前。因此，IGDT 填补的、可能填补的或被要求填补的技术现状差距并不存在。此外，由于 IGDT 是基于局部稳健性的定义，因此该理论不适合处理这种理论声称要解决的严重不确定性。因此，由于该理论声称特别适合处理严重的、无界的不确定性，因此不可避免的结论是，该理论构成了卓越的巫毒决策理论。图 1不言而喻，再多的言辞也无法掩盖这个事实。该信件试图将对 IGDT 的有效、严格、有充分文件记录的批评“……说成是术语上的争吵……”，这是另一种试图避免处理 IGDT 房间里大象的做法。用误导性的修辞来争论那些可以追溯到 20 世纪 40 年代和 60 年代的想法、模型、技术、方法等是 IGDT 的创新，这是没有意义的。但更重要的是，在应用生态学和保护生物学中错误地应用这些想法会有什么好处呢？在附录中，我将探讨一个更有趣的问题，即：问题 2：是什么可能的理由促使人们寻找 IGDT 要填补的（不存在的）技术现状差距？
