I usually define "rationality" as accuracy-seeking whenever decisional considerations do not enter. These days I sometimes also use the phrase "epistemic rationality".

It would indeed be more complicated if we began conducting the meta-argument that (a) an ideal Bayesian not faced with various vengeful gods inspecting its algorithm should not decide to rewrite its memories to something calibrated away from what it originally believed to be accurate, or that (b) human beings ought to seek accuracy in a life well-lived according to goals that include both explicit truth-seeking and other goals not about truth.

But unless I'm specifically focused on this argument, I usually go so far as to talk as if it resolves in favor of epistemic accuracy, that is, that pragmatic rationality is unified with epistemic rationality rather than implying two different disciplines. If truth is a bad idea, it's not clear what the reader is doing on Less Wrong, and indeed, the "pragmatic" reader who somehow knows that it's a good idea to be ignorant, will at once flee as far as possible...