If a belief is true you will be better off believing it, and if it is false you will be better off rejecting it.
It is easy to construct at least these 2 kinds of cases where this is false:
You have a set of beliefs optimized for co-occurence, and you are replacing one of these beliefs with a more-true belief. In other words, the new true belief will cause you harm because of other untrue (or less true) beliefs that you still hold.
If an entire community can be persuaded to adopt a false belief, it may enable them to overcome a tragedy-of-the-commons or prisoners’-dilemma situation.
If you still aren’t convinced whether you are always better-off with a true belief, ask yourself whether you have ever told someone else something that was not quite true, or withheld a truth from them, because you thought the full truth would be harmful.
You have a set of beliefs optimized for co-occurence, and you are replacing one of these beliefs with a more-true belief. In other words, the new true belief will cause you harm because of other untrue (or less true) beliefs that you still hold.
If an entire community can be persuaded to adopt a false belief, it may enable them to overcome a tragedy-of-the-commons or prisoners’-dilemma situation.
If you still aren’t convinced whether you are always better-off with a true belief, ask yourself whether you have ever told someone else something that was not quite true, or withheld a truth from them, because you thought the full truth would be harmful.