What's interesting was not that he changed his mind, but that he adjusted his own understanding of falsification to accomodate new data rather than letting it falsify his framework.

If you keep reading, you that this led to Kuhn's criticism of Popper's approach, and his motion of scientific revolutions, which we see actually being practiced: particle dark matter has technically been falsified many times, but we didn't throw it out but instead revised it to accomodate new data. It is only when these sorts of revisions become less plausible compared to a totally different approach that science meaningfully progresses.

The next paragraph mentions that he retracted this statement the next year.

How does science conclusively resolve "is"? It seems to be a function of human opinion based on this.