A lot of these answers seem to be borne of algorithmic consensus of top-ranked sites. There are probably worse ways to go about it, but in many ways Google has

A lot of these answers seem to be borne of algorithmic consensus of top-ranked sites. There are probably worse ways to go about it, but in many ways Google has to take sides on ideas or concepts that are still strongly debated. Consensus does not create or prove facts, even if it's a strong signal. There are certainly things that I strongly believe that you do not. Does that make my beliefs (or yours) any less valid (until we're confronted with sufficient evidence to change our views), even if one of us has to be wrong? * Are there sea monsters? Aliens? * Is there a God? * Is there a multiverse? Historically, there was so many things that were 'consensus' concepts that were just flat (oops) wrong. Google would have gotten all of these wrong.. * What happens when you sail over the edge of the earth? * What's holding up the earth? * Is the earth the center of the universe? How about: * Is the speed of light a fixed constant? * How much statistical error is introduced into carbon dating when extrapolating behind more than a few hundred years? * Is cracking my knuckles bad? How about this one, if it was listed on thousands of spammy self-help sites: "recent studies have shown that it's beneficial to drink gasoline in small quantities." (please do not drink gasoline. That's insane.) Should Google be liable for those answers that are now coming from its site, with the authority of the world's dominant answer generator, instead of the third-party site that's spouting nonsense? (yes.) Really, though, Google's answers are probably as good as any until we learn everything about everything and finally agree on everything. Even if they are self-serving to keep you on Google and not send you to a third-party site to get your answer.