It is natural to think that there is something epistemically objectionable about avoiding evidence, at least in ideal cases. We argue that this natural thought is inconsistent with a kind of risk avoidance that is both wide-spread and intuitively rational. More specifically, we argue that if the kind of risk avoidance recently defended by Lara Buchak is rational, avoiding evidence can be epistemically commendable.

 

In the course of our argument we also lay some foundations for studying epistemic value, or accuracy, when considering risk-aware agents. I will also briefly discuss the general prospect for the epistemic utility theory program applied to the risk aware.