Note that no requirement was inserted for the explanations having to be correct, so of course a disciplined enterprise like science could do that as much as others that are outright arbitrary. Human ancestors have been providing explanations since the arising of their speech and storytelling. Such as thunder and lightning being caused by Thor banging his hammer (or whatever). Likewise, scientists can submit answers for any item currently suffering an explicatory vacuum, which applicable textbooks and information resources will then treat the most popular of (among peers) as the solution until the possibility is otherwise discarded. For instance, "The Unknown Child" (buried in Nova Scotia) that was discovered after the Titanic sank was initially determined by experts slash widely reported to be a baby boy named Eino Panula. But in 2007-2011 this was disproved; it's now taken to have been the body of Sidney Goodwin. This implies that everything hangs together properly in an overarching framework or network of explanation ["nothing strange ... nothing out of place"], that all scientifically accessible phenomena are causally interdependent without a single loose end left dangling. As useful a view as this might be as a driving presupposition or incentive for methodological naturalism (similar to Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason), it's just practical dogma in the end. From the standpoint that it is impossible for researchers to be at every microphysical and macrophysical point throughout space and past/future to verify that it is really the case. To confirm that the world is completely bereft of anomalies or disconnected events lacking causal / relational interdependence with the rest. I.E., Asimov's personal belief below of an infinitely receding process of knowledge production isn't even required to indicate an impossible task for humans, when it comes to either completing such an inventory of nature or verifying a globally perfect network / scheme of explanation. Isaac Asimov: "I believe that scientific knowledge has fractal properties; that no matter how much we learn, whatever is left, however small it may seem, is just as infinitely complex as the whole was to start with. That, I think, is the secret of the Universe." Douglas Burnham: The principle of sufficient reason also accounts for why Leibniz uses the phrase 'completing the whole demonstration' [...] If the complete concept of the subject (that is, all of its true predicates) together constitutes a complete network of explanation, then these explanations can be followed forward and backward, so to speak, at least in principle. That is, working forward, one could deduce that Caesar will cross the Rubicon from a all the predicates that have been true of him; or, working backward, one can deduce from all those predicates true of Caesar at his death the reasons why he won the battle of Pharsalus. The 'whole demonstration,' then, is the revelation of the logical structure of the network of explanations that make Caesar who he is. However, this is clearly not something the average person can do. Human minds are not subtle and capacious enough for a task which may be infinite.