How pluralistic is pluralism really? A case study of Sandra Mitchell's Integrative Pluralism (¿Cómo de pluralista es realmente el pluralismo? Un estudio de caso del Pluralismo Integrativo de Sandra Mitchell)

Epistemic pluralists often argue that different epistemic perspectives in science are equally warranted given different contexts. Sandra Mitchell - with her Integrative Pluralism (IP) - has notably advocated for this kind of epistemic pluralism. A problem arises for Mitchell because she also wants to be an epistemological pluralist. She claims that, not only are different epistemic perspectives in science equally warranted, but different understandings of these epistemic perspectives in science are also equally warranted. The problem is that Mitchell presents her understanding of epistemic perspectives in science (IP) as if it is the correct understanding. It is, then, contradictory to claim that there is more than one such understanding. As a solution, I suggest we follow Feyerabend in being opportunistic pluralists. We can adopt pluralism as a short-term strategy in the pursuit of long-term unitary goals. One such goal is what philosophers of understanding call objectual understanding, which appears to be the kind of understanding that pluralistic views like IP tacitly aspire to anyway.