Contemporary interdisciplinary scholarship converges on a single demand: that the social sciences abandon the fiction of a single, culturally unmarked epistemology in favour of epistemological pluralism — the principled commitment to treating multiple knowledge traditions as legitimate and mutually corrective sources of theoretical and methodological insight. This chapter argues that epistemological pluralism is not one emerging paradigm among several but the organising logic connecting the most significant methodological developments of the past two decades: the WEIRD critique of universal sampling, the rehabilitation of indigenous and non-Western knowledge systems, the turn toward integrative research design, and the reconceptualisation of validity as a property of arguments rather than instruments. The chapter situates this argument within the Kuhn–Feyerabend debate on methodological constraint; examines the Indigenous–Western dialogue — particularly Bharatiya Manovigyan — as the site where epistemological and power stakes are highest; traces the methodological implications for research design and validity; and argues that the institutional changes required demand structural reform, not individual goodwill. The chapter concludes with three unresolved tensions that constitute the genuine research agenda for a pluralist social science.