Why not? By asking things like that, he gives the experts the chance to address those ideas and present a more informed and/or grounded perspective of them. Honestly I think a lot of the time this is exactly why he asks things like that.
I agree, it's interesting for him to bring up the layperson superficial critiques and other ideas that float around a given subject that many people may not ask outright because of their oftentimes fringey natured questions. But they still wonder about those questions nevertheless. Joe gets all that stuff aired out more or less.
Why is it not good if it’s something the audience would like to hear explored?