Epistemic charity examined

Epistemic charity says that we should (or may) interpret others in the most favourable way consistent with the evidence. Though this could be refined in several ways, this paper develops an argument against all of them, insofar as they endorse a certain ‘signature’ of charity, where the favourable interpretation is combined with an acknowledgement of, and uncertainty over, countervailing evidence. Though initially plausible, the signature is susceptible to a version of triviality arguments prominent in the literature on conditionals. The second half of the paper evaluates responses to the argument and generalizations of it to other default epistemic rules. Ultimately, a resolution is suggested, requiring that the friend of epistemic charity combine their optimism with realism in a different way, via fragmented states of mind.