 Intelligibility theorists (Vallier 2016b) argue that reasonable pluralism applies to evaluative standards as it applies to reasons (Vallier 2011). Reasonable people can dispute standards of inference and epistemic justification. For instance, John may regard theological reasoning as intelligible. To illustrate, he points to the rational structure of religious exegetical disputes. We may reject another’s sacred texts but think they furnish reasonable evaluative standards. Others may disagree: sacred texts are too indeterminate for adequate interpretation. Members may disagree about what counts as a good cognitive process.