She is a professor of philosophy, and teaches both college and graduate level philosophy. I'm sure she tailors her talks for each audience, and thus it might be a mistake to mischaracterize her talks in general based on those only intended for laity who are simply searching for guidelines, not a philosophy course.
But if this were true, wouldn't it make sense to be sure that your talk for ordinary laity would more logical and orderly, not less? For a less sophisticated audience, shouldn't your presentation adhere more closely to a logical outline if you want them to grasp the concepts?
In comparison, I attended the 13-week lecture series by Dr. Tom Drolesky called "Living in the Shadow of the Cross." Every minute of those 39 hours was so logically and precisely presented that the outline just wrote itself on my paper. Formerly ambiguous concepts became clear. Seemingly unrelated concepts were now seen in relation to each other.
The biggest advantage of a logical presentation is that it is much easier to remember. In contrast, it is virtually impossible to remember a talk that meanders. If one can go over the outline of a talk in one's mind, it is easy to recall the various sub-points and details that supported each item. But if the presentation jumps back and forth and frequently changes topics, there is no mnemonic device to aid recall.