 The burgeoning literature on representational pluralism also raises questions about the distinguishability of pluralism and relativism. While pluralism is often presented as a third way between monism and relativism, rejections of “anything goes” anarchy tend argue against a strawman rather than more sophisticated forms of epistemic relativism in contemporary philosophy of science (Kusch 2020a). Still, many philosophers of science insist on a distinction between epistemic pluralism and relativism in the sense that the former is taken to provide contextualized normative resources while the latter is assumed to insist on claims of equal validity that undermine the formulation of evaluative standards. At the same time, epistemic relativists commonly accept contextual standards of evaluation, leading to a contested and muddy boundary between epistemic pluralism and relativism (Veigl forthcoming)