I find that there is a strange paradox between the “question - answer axis.” Because, for a start in order to construct a question one must have some set of answers already - “a priori” knowledge of some sort - a set of assumptions.

When i ask “Why is the sky blue?” I am assuming the sky is in fact blue.
The question seems reasonable because basic observation by any regular individual suggests so. But a scientist would understand that this question is inaccurate and a better one would be “Why does the sky ‘appear’ to be blue?”

If all questions require prior knowledge - and all prior knowledge is in its own right answers to other questions - then everything is an assumption: both the question and the answer. We have this weird loop going on.
This is typical of the annoying three year old in the “why phase” - why are we going to the shop, because we need food, why do we need food, because we have to live, what is living? And usually by the time the kid has reached the metaphysical or philosophical someone tells them to be quiet

Let’s take an example of a question which seems wrong but is actually correct - opposite to the “why is the sky blue” one.

“Why is ice-cream warm?” Most people would be like what the hell ice-cream is freezing. Because again they are basing the answer on subjective experience.

But ice cream is just below 273 Kelvin which is safe to safe - fairly thermally active in the grand scheme of things. The answer would be ice cream is relatively warm because the planet is quite a warm place in the universe and that’s where we find ice cream.

So basically, it seems the correctness of answers is determined by the correctness of questions? Are either more important that the other?