Evidence neutrality and the moral value of information

Abstract

In this chapter, Amanda Askell takes up the question of whether there is a case for favoring interventions whose effectiveness has stronger evidential support, when expected effectiveness is equal. Of course, in practice expected effectiveness might well not be equal: as Askell notes, given a sceptical prior, it might be only in the presence of substantial positive evidence that any intervention can have an expected value significantly higher than that of “doing nothing”. But is there a case for favoring evidence-backed interventions over and above this contribution of evidence to expected value? Askell argues that in fact the reverse is true: when expected value is equal one should prefer to invest in interventions that have less evidential support, on the grounds that by doing so one can acquire evidence of their effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) that may then be valuable for future investment decisions.