Here's another reason to accept direct realism: If reality is real, then either direct or indirect realism is correct, in accordance with the law of excluded middle. But to deny that reality is real is to assert a self-contradiction, which is necessarily false. Hence, either direct or indirect realism is correct. According to indirect realism, an entity capable of sensation is directly aware of only internal (mental) entities and becomes indirectly aware of external (physical) entities only by a process of inferring the latter from the former. Some very simple organisms, such as bacteria, amoebae, paramecia, jellyfish, sea anemones, slime molds, and even some plants are said to be capable of experiencing at least rudimentary sensations and responding to environmental stimuli but are incapable of inference. Therefore, indirect realism is mistaken.
I left a step out of the complex argument above. I should have started with the following simple argument: Either reality is real or reality is not real. But the second alternative is a necessarily false self-contradiction. So, reality is real. From there, I could have continued with the first premise in the argument above and left out the sentence following it.
From what you have written, it seems to me that it is possible to maintain that humans use maps and models to understand the world and still be a realist rather than an indirect realist. Even Alfred Korzybski’s statement, “the map is not the territory”, seems to be the kind of thing a realist might say since it acknowledges the existence of external reality, “the territory”, and seems to imply that we construct representations as a result of our experience of it.
Here's another reason to accept direct realism: If reality is real, then either direct or indirect realism is correct, in accordance with the law of excluded middle. But to deny that reality is real is to assert a self-contradiction, which is necessarily false. Hence, either direct or indirect realism is correct. According to indirect realism, an entity capable of sensation is directly aware of only internal (mental) entities and becomes indirectly aware of external (physical) entities only by a process of inferring the latter from the former. Some very simple organisms, such as bacteria, amoebae, paramecia, jellyfish, sea anemones, slime molds, and even some plants are said to be capable of experiencing at least rudimentary sensations and responding to environmental stimuli but are incapable of inference. Therefore, indirect realism is mistaken.
I left a step out of the complex argument above. I should have started with the following simple argument: Either reality is real or reality is not real. But the second alternative is a necessarily false self-contradiction. So, reality is real. From there, I could have continued with the first premise in the argument above and left out the sentence following it.
From what you have written, it seems to me that it is possible to maintain that humans use maps and models to understand the world and still be a realist rather than an indirect realist. Even Alfred Korzybski’s statement, “the map is not the territory”, seems to be the kind of thing a realist might say since it acknowledges the existence of external reality, “the territory”, and seems to imply that we construct representations as a result of our experience of it.