In the first two examples, I don't see how Oppenheimer failed to be "courageous." He disagreed with Dirac! He made technically accurate points that proved not t

In the first two examples, I don't see how Oppenheimer failed to be "courageous." He disagreed with Dirac! He made technically accurate points that proved not to be rebuttals after all. This isn't about not following his ideas far enough, it's about just being wrong. To me this reads more as the authors projecting their own ideas about what is important in science onto these anecdotes. While I think that's a natural parlor game for scientists to play, I don't think it's well argued here.