Shedding new light on Zadeh´s criticism of Dempster´s rule of combination

Shortly after proposing Dempster´s rule of combination as a general aggregation rule for evidence from independent sources, Zadeh formulated an annoying example for which Dempster´s rule seemed to produce counter-intuitive results. Since then, many authors have used Zadeh´s example either to criticize Demster-Shafer theory as a whole, or as a motivation for constructing alternative combination rules. This paper shows that the counter-intuition of Zadeh´s example is not a problem of Dempster´s rule, but a problem of Zadeh´s model that does not correspond to reality. Two different ways to fix the problem will be discussed, showing that Dempster´s rule of combination perfectly behaves, as one would expect.