So if we admit that there are hard facts that cannot be explained, on what basis do we add entities in explanations of the type of position on the unfamiliar? Perhaps the phenomenon before us is simply a rigid fact of reality, and there is no entity behind it? In the example we gave, maybe the electronic device on Mars has just been there ever since time began, and no one made it? Why multiply entities unnecessarily? The principle of logic is to seek the simplest explanation that accounts for the most data.
There is no clear answer to this question, other than human intuition, which pushes us to seek as basic explanations as possible, and not to stop the chain of explanations too soon. The claim that the electronic device has always existed seems ridiculous and unreasonable. The tendency of man in general, and of science in particular, is to try to reduce as much as possible the number of basic facts.
If a basic explanation for some phenomena can be found, it is better to adopt it, than to attribute to each of these phenomena a status of a hard fact in itself. In fact, one of the tests of a successful scientific theory is its ability to economically explain as many phenomena as possible, even if it explains them through the position on the unfamiliar.
Here we come to gravity, for example. Newton was not the first person to have an apple fall on his head. People have known this phenomenon since time immemorial. Nevertheless, Newton was the first to give a comprehensive explanation of all the phenomena of various falls, and of many other phenomena, such as the tides, and the motion of the stars in the sky. It is through his conclusion that there is one force behind all these phenomena: gravity.
