Sometimes the intuitively appealing explanation is adequate to the task, even when a more accurate explanation is available. We’ve known for centuries that it’s more accurate to say that the Earth rotates on its axis than to say that the sun moves across the sky. But the latter better expresses our intuitive reading of the situation and is actually perfectly adequate for most purposes. It feels a little forced to perceive the situation in the more accurate way, so the older, more naive model persists. That’s a flagrant example, but there are many more subtle instances.
Explanations are like tools. Sometimes a crude tool will do the job just as well as a precision instrument, and it may be closer to hand. For other jobs, the crude tool won’t cut it; then you need to seek one better fitted to the job.
In the pure sciences, the criteria are much stricter. All explanations are tentative and invite challenge.