 Epistemic concepts such as “explanation” and “objectivity” are embedded in widely different research programs and attempts to provide general definitions run the risk of obscuring this diversity by being biased towards certain domains of research from which the definition is derived. However, pluralism about epistemic concepts is not a truism and can be challenged both from unificationist and eliminativist angles. First, unificationist attempts to develop general definitions may reduce contextual accuracy but come with the benefit of highlighting commonalities of different uses of epistemic core concepts. Despite all of their contextual variability, claims of objectivity may still involve a distinct form of epistemic endorsement: to call something objective is to rely on it and to suggest that others should rely on it (Koskinen 2020). Second, pluralism can also be challenged from an eliminativist angle that treats conceptual plurality as evidence of fragmentation that ultimately undermines the usefulness of a concept. If “objectivity” is used to highlight heterogenous epistemic values, it may be more helpful to analyze these values directly (Ludwig 2017) rather than to rely on an ambiguous and vague notion of objectivity that provides not much more than an abstract honorary label (Hacking 1999).