These two merely disagree on the meaning of the word decision, not the nature of the situation; one should pick a different scenario to make the possible point about how choosing not to choose doesn’t quite work.
I think that they both agree that “decision” here means “choice to embark on a course of action other than the null action”, where the null action may be simply waiting for more data. Where they disagree is the relative costs of the null action versus a member of a set of poorly known actions; it seems that the second speaker is trying to remind the first that the null action carries a cost, whether in opportunity or otherwise.
You post a link to “Disputing Definitions” as if there is no such thing as a wrong definition. In this case, the first speaker’s definition of “decision” is wrong—it does not accurately distinguish between vanadium and palladium—and the second speaker is pointing this out.
“I just don’t have enough data to make a decision.”
“Yes, you do. What you don’t have is enough data for you not to have to make one”
http://old.onefte.com/2011/03/08/you-have-a-decision-to-make/
These two merely disagree on the meaning of the word decision, not the nature of the situation; one should pick a different scenario to make the possible point about how choosing not to choose doesn’t quite work.
I think that they both agree that “decision” here means “choice to embark on a course of action other than the null action”, where the null action may be simply waiting for more data. Where they disagree is the relative costs of the null action versus a member of a set of poorly known actions; it seems that the second speaker is trying to remind the first that the null action carries a cost, whether in opportunity or otherwise.
You post a link to “Disputing Definitions” as if there is no such thing as a wrong definition. In this case, the first speaker’s definition of “decision” is wrong—it does not accurately distinguish between vanadium and palladium—and the second speaker is pointing this out.