Honestly, you have an extremely narrow view of what constitutes an appropriate knowledge of "the history of science" and seem upset by the notion that people can have an understanding of historical contexts. I'm not sure why you feel so threatened by the idea that us neckbeard scientists might possibly have some understanding of the history of our fields. Apparently the idea that scientists learn about the historical context of scientists in their field and how it effected other scientists and teaching the field of science isn't "history of science" enough for you.

No, I'm not. I'm sticking to my original point that learning much about the history of science is not generally been a major part of science education.

For some reason understanding scientists, their contributions to the field, and how it impacted other scientists of the era as well as future learnings isn't "real study of the history", whatever that may be. You're ranting on with demands to know how many primary texts by those authors as if that's the line that somehow legitimizes into becoming "real" history. By Mendel, Darwin, Galvni, etc, no, I haven't read their primary texts because that's not my field. By other historical figures though, such as Hodgkin and Huxley or Santiago Ramón y Cajal? Yeah I've read and been familiar with their texts because it is part of my field and understanding many derivations of neuroscience. It may surprise you to know but scientists read primary sources all the time, usually on a weekly basis, and often do review 100+ year old sources when putting together papers.

You're basically missing the point, anyway.

Oh ok. Well it's good to know that I have someone here that is completely unrelated to science to tell me how my curriculum ACTUALLY is and that the history I've been taught isn't "real" because I haven't read primary sources about how Louis Pasteur influenced 18th century sexuality in Uganda.