 Putnam’s pluralism has provoked very different reactions from realists. Some argue that conceptual pluralism is consistent with realism [Lynch 1998; Horgan and Timmons 2002; Sosa 2003], others take Putnam’s pluralism to amount to the claim that ontological expressions are either indeterminate or that alternative ontologies are equally good, both alternatives being problematic [Eklund 2008]. Realists cannot make sense of the Carnapian idea that existence and truth are relative to a conceptual scheme [Brueckner 1998]. Peter van Inwagen provides a trenchant criticism of Putnam’s claims [van Inwagen 2002]: 