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 upset or threatened by anything, and I have no idea how my idea of the history of science is "narrow." You're the one who seems threatened by the seemingly non-controversial suggestion that you don't need deep knowledge of the history of science to do science, and that the history of science is not as big a part of the science curriculum as "history of X" is in some other disciplines. I'm not even criticizing science education here.

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.

Because what I'm saying is having a general sense of the big names in your field and their main contributions is a good thing, but it's very different from serious engagement with historical figures. And you really don't need the latter. You don't need to read Kepler's Harmonices Mundi to be a perfectly good physicist. You get a rather cursory introduction to important figures and events, and that's fine; that's what helps to socialize you into the field. You may refer back to sources that are of particular relevance to a project you're working on, sure. But when you compare that to the fact that a full third of my doctoral education was mandatory study of the history of my field, I think I can safely say that history of science does not occupy the same place in the science curriculum as history does in several other disciplines. And that, again, is not in any way, shape, or form a criticism of science.

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.

I'm sorry, but if you really think that something like studying how one of the pioneers of evolutionary biology is very likely to have borrowed conceptual models contemporary political economy is in any way similar to examples you keep naming, that doesn't make a very convincing case that your science education has taught you to think at all intelligently about the history of science.