No, I haven’t read it, but I see it’s a defense of panpsychism that’s based on the idea that science isn’t currently set up to solve the problem of consciousness, because of Galileo’s error of distinguishing, roughly, between primary and secondary qualities. Galileo said physical properties are intrinsic to objects, whereas sensory properties are found only in consciousness. So Goff’s criticism would be that Galileo’s materialism is less simple than panpsychism, because Galileo posits dualism.

But Occam’s razor isn’t the only scientific value or principle of reasoning. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn pointed to several: accuracy, consistency, broad scope, simplicity and fruitfulness. Moreover, a scientific theory has to make predictions that are testable and falsifiable. The theory has to hold up under multiple, independent experiments.