Woof, woof, woof!!!
Dogma for dogs.
I also (categorically) disagree.
Although it's quite pertinent to know HOW to think (better) about X or Y, or even Z... insofar as the right constellation is sighted & used, why, yes, this will properly corral the lettered point towards which (better) WHAT to think.
(Pure mathematics proofs of/for the existence of God come to mind along with exuberantly florid shows of affectation for poetic rhapsodes on set theory. (Both are... rather off-point.)
Every bit as important (and likely more) is the discipline of lazy* inquiry, most often related to open inquiry.
Shall we box our ears in to lazy inquiry, which is... open - to lazy questions, even random questions? Even "bad" questions?
Tell that to Alexander Fleming or Penzias & Wilson, or Aristarchus of Samos (even more pointedly).
And Pauli's wild speculation positing a nearly impossible subatomic particle (the neutrino) may very well have been scoffed at with his own devastating phrase, "not even wrong".
As any & all knowledge starts with a question, it is the question which reigns over its answer, not the other way round.
* Long showers and even
longer walks "lazy".
** Even a raw observation,
especially an odd one, arrives
with its fraternal twin
question - "Huh?".