I've enjoyed watching the "Theory of Bitcoin" videos with RXC. It's clear to me that Craig is an academic, but not a good way. I love interdisciplinary knowledge and consider essential for all serious theorizing. But I'm not a fan of shallow interdisciplinary knowledge. Craig is a reservoir of shallow knowledge - as if he's read a hundred college textbooks on a hundred subjects, never realizing that college textbooks are terrible sources of information. Because few people are broadly studied, they don't even know where to challenge him or how to reveal his lack of depth. For example, Craig has mentioned several times that "Mathematics has self-referential problems that were illustrated by people like Russell and Godel." This is incorrect. Or at least, it's spectacularly shallow. If you read a college textbook or skim Wikipedia, you might think it was true. But it's superficial book knowledge. The problems in the foundations of mathematics (especially wrt self-reference) presuppose a bunch of questionable philosophical axioms. They cannot be separated from metaphysics. While yes, it's true that a Platonic Cantorian will run into problems (like Russell did), that's merely one school of thinking. To take this and universalize about mathematics as a whole is shallow and ignorant - the kind of thing a grad student would confidently state while standing on the peak of "Mt Stupid." This is another reason I am more persuaded by Phil Wilson's account of the creation of Bitcoin. Academic minds are generally terrible at real-world problem solving (or even independent thinking). Phil is an independent mind which has shown the patterns of reasoning necessary to make a breakthrough invention. In Phil's story, Craig is an academic that might have understood Bitcoin was theoretically possible, but because of his unoriginal patterns of reasoning, he was incapable of bringing it into existence. Book knowledge is too shallow to make real breakthroughs.