Discovering truth >>> Avoiding error
As a general rule, discovering truth seems far more beneficial than avoiding error.
To illustrate —
Discovering a truth: Dinosaurs are real. This is knowledge you can use to corroborate other things.
Avoiding an error: Dragons aren’t real. Establishing Dragons aren’t real does not establish that anything else is real. Instead of having a new piece of information to corroborate other things with, you have found something to exclude — you have removed information from your repertoire. Removing things involves risk. It’s very possible you just haven’t found the right set of corroborations to become convinced yet, but by removing a possibility, you usurp the future — you guarantee you’ll never learn that particular thing, even if it’s true.
To summarize —
The strategy of discovering truths “unlocks” more truths via corroboration.
The strategy of avoiding error creates more errors by prematurely causing you to negate things.
This same line of reasoning is why negation-based ethics (Less Wrong, climate change movement) is making its followers anxious and unable to lead a good life.