ABSTRACT
The argument for a strong assumption of rationality does not rest on an empirical investigation of the psychological mechanisms underlying either decision of the interpreter or of the interpretee. This chapter discusses the controversy regarding the status of the rationality assumption and evaluates it in light of the recent proposal of simulation theorists to develop a psychologically realistic account of the interpretation of another agent within the folk-psychological context. One of the main defenses for the simulation theory, as outlined by Heal, proceeds under the assumption that a central point of our interpretative practices consists in making the actions and thoughts of an agent intelligible in light of some standards of rationality. The arguments for simulation theory should be understood to be independent from the question of whether or not interpretation is in general bound by the constraint of charity and a formalizable concept of rationality.
