@Setanta,
1) That's why stated it as a hypothetical by saying "
suppose".
Suppose it
had been an honest change of mind....
2) If you read Galileo's works, you will find that underneath the observations he describes and the inferences he makes from them, there is a whole layer of epistemological points he argues. Points about what should count as evidence in astronomy, what kind of reasoning is sound, and so forth. Today we take these philosophical points for granted and don't bother teaching them in school explicitly. (I'm not sure that's such a good idea; much of the now-obsolete epistemology Galileo fought is returning today in the arguments of creationists. But I digress ....) In Galileo's time, however, these epistemological points were evidently not taken for granted, and needed to be defended. I, for what it's worth, have no problem counting Galileo as a philosopher of science, and his scientific insights as an application of his philosophy.
3) Even if I granted points 1 and 2, it
still wouldn't change my conclusion, because it wouldn't change the core of my point: An insight is an insight. It is either valid or not, either interesting or not. The originator's opinion of his own insight doesn't affect its validity or its relevance at all. Therefore the opinion, and any changes therein, should be a matter of indifference to those who evaluate a philosopher's insights. Or anyone's insights in any field.