I critically examine Feyerabend’s defense of theoretical pluralism, illustrating key claims with a case study of an episode in the history of early modern astronomy, when Tycho Brahe published his new theory of the cosmos. I argue that contemporary defenses of pluralism tend to emphasize the fact that when scientists consider more theories they are more likely to hit up the truth or a theory close to the truth. This was not Feyerabend’s rationale for theoretical pluralism. In his defense of theoretical pluralism, Feyerabend emphasizes the importance of comparative evaluation in determining the epistemic merits of competing theories. Further, I argue that when there are multiple theories from which to choose, scientists are able to make the transition from a long-accepted theory to a new theory in a gradual, piecemeal fashion.