[David Sklansky]

"They way I interpret David's question is how valuable is it to know the "objective" truth. In other words (this is pertinent example I see him asking), someone believes in G-d and because of that acts in a more ethical way then he otherwise would. If we could somehow show him that he is infact wrong and that G-d doesn't exist should we? We know that the pre-suppositions of his entire life are wrong but they result in "Advantageous" behavior.

Is their an intrinsic value to knowing the truth or being right (if the knowing said truth causes you harm)?"

That's a fair explanation of my question.

In the movie Brradcast News, I was struck by a scene (I may have the deatails wrong) where a lady was by herself at a party and being accosted by a man with the words "it must be nice to always be right whenever you disagree with someone". I believe this happened after she stormed out of a meeting or something like that.

The answer you expected to hear was something like "Oh shut up" or "I don't always think I'm right" or "since I analyze meticulously before I argue it's not surprising I'm right". Instead she said crying, "no its not nice at all".

If being wrong means that someone behaves a lot more ethically or that society is much safer, its probably the better course. But what about if, like the lady in the movie, it would simply mean that your cohorts, who are in fact wrong a lot, like you better. Was that tradeoff worth it?