This article is a response to Howard Sankey’s (2010) ‘Witchcraft, Relativism and the Problem of the Criterion.’ It seeks to refute two central arguments that are brought forward by Sankey. First, that the relativist is skeptic about norm-justification and second, that naturalism could serve as a response to the relativist. I will demonstrate, by the use of historical cases, that epistemic norms cannot be subjected to empirical evaluation without using the very norms that are the target of analysis. Finally, I will reject the assertion that the conclusion of my critique implies a form of equal validity.