know more about their topic of interest.
A critical thinking study years ago collected a bunch of scholars and researchers in literature, science, social sciences and got a set of questions that would involve critical thinking of each set. Then they gave those questions to everybody in the set.
The chemistry PhDs scored really high when it came to their field. But around the level of their latest coursework in other fields--which often meant high school history or literature. It was the same for mathematicians, historians, philosophers, materials engineers, computer scientists, political scientists. The real take-away is that there is no general "critical thinking" apparatus, you need to know facts and issues and even analytical techniques for each field, and while there can be some overlap (chemistry and physics, perhaps, or political science and history) for the most part expertise in political science doesn't make you any more knowledgeable than a high-school senior in chemistry, and if you're an expert in economics that really doesn't mean you know squat about engineering.
In other words, from bottom to top, if you're interested in something and work at knowing more about it, you're going to know more than if you're not interested in something and don't pay attention.
That could be "religion." It could be "Xianity." It could be the development and practice of sonata-allegro form or wander-words and their connection to archeology.
= new reply since forum marked as read