Do please try and avoid (deliberate?) bad paraphrasing.

Both were widely recognised as more than a bit kooky outside of their core strengths.

"When a mind is opened that far, the brain often falls out." - Tim Minchin.

You are making exactly the same point I was making.

* sans the quote from a random comedian

But Pauling didn't successfully "stretch his domain expertise" to vitamin supplements anymore than Carson stretched his to Egyptology.

Not to mention Einstein's work as a comedian never really took off.

Either you're trolling or your comprehension is just totally off, but to reiterate the original point was that making breakthroughs in sciences often requires "leaps of faith", which are near impossible to do if you're a textbook rationalist.

I didn't make any claims about their domain expertise being cross-domain.

As a neutral observer, my read on this is that they are not trolling or misreading. Their comments seem relevant and accurate.

> I didn't make any claims about their domain expertise being cross-domain

Maybe you have a different understanding of "cross domain," but they represented what you said fairly.

> Perhaps the reason they could stretch their domain expertise so far was precisely because they kept their mind open.

(Emphasis added.)

At least we have a point of agreement, that being that: "Either you're trolling or your comprehension is just totally off"

To return to the beginning you arrived here with the statement that

"[Two times] Nobel prize winner and superior[(?)] neurosurgeon criticized as quacks by two internet users"

I pointed out bad paraphrasing, both parties had recognised core skills, both famously championed beliefs that had little to no evidence or support.

Point being neither of "the two internet users" above accused the subjects of being quacks per se .. just that both had definitely publicly veered into quackery.

That's the relevant observation here, a thread about a much lauded elder astrophysicist veering into matters outside off his computational chops, into questions of metallurgy, and not receiving any support from his peers.

TBH I'm a fan of the bulk of Paulings work, quantum chemistry, molecular biology, and his promotion (and Russell's) of nuclear disarmament. I attribute his embrace of megavitamin therapy more to his age and aversion to death.

Carson seems like a talented enough knife man albeit dimmer than many others I know.

You did explicitly state that they both could "stretch their domain expertise 'so far'" which leaves a lot of ambiguity wrt just how far you intended, especially with Pauling who literally had bona fide cross domain credientials (or over lapping credentials in related science fields plus a public voice that lead to his Nobel Peace Prize.)

Minchin, FWiW, is a keenly intelligent comedian and lyricist and frequently mixes in in some on point observations from scientific rationalism, philosophy, logic, et al.

Additionally, I bear you no ill will (I've exercised no votes here) this may all be a case of two people reading past each other.

fair arguments, I revert my position and agree the wording may have been ambiguous on my behalf.

“Open mindedness” does not mean to “treat all ideas as being on equal grounds”

All it means is to listen. After you listen, if you judge that it’s clearly just some quack trying to Mark Seargant some people (this is clearly what’s happening), then that doesn’t make you “not open minded”.