 Various responses to the problem of inconsistent models have been proposed, reflecting different accounts of the proper epistemic attitude to adopt. Some pluralists develop an ontologically-laden defense of permanently inconsistent plurality by putting to the fore some features of the world—such as its complexity or lack of ordered structure (Longino 2006, 2013; Waters 2017). Inconsistent plurality, being ontologically grounded, is thus here to stay and one should not expect to overcome it by choosing between conflicting accounts or trying to integrate them. Other pluralists, however, resist appeals to ontology to account for persistent methodological and conceptual divides among research programs regarding the same phenomenon. For example, it is sometimes argued that persistent different approaches in biology should be traced back to persisting divergent interests rather than conflicting commitments to states of the world (Potochnik 2017). In “historical” natural sciences such as climate science and cosmology, the persistent co-existence of multiple computer simulations of the evolution of a target system (e.g., the dark matter structures of the universe) can be traced back to specific features of their building over time such as their plasticity and path-dependency (Lenhard &amp; Winsberg 2010; Ruphy 2011a).