Rejoinder

Abstract

I welcome the comments that have been made by Professor Shafer. He makes a number of important points, however, I shall confine this rejoinder by addressing only a selected number of these points. In particular, I would like to use this opportunity to briefly comment on how well I feel the work that has been done by those in the `imprecise probabilities' community, tackles the specific shortcomings of the standard Bayesian approach that have been highlighted in my article.