Direct Naturalism Vs Indirect Realism

Direct realism is the theory argues that direct object of perception is the object itself in the external world, in other words, people perceive the physical objects themselves; in contrast to direct realism, indirect realism claims that direct object of perception is a mental image, it is a representation which exists in our minds represents the physical objects. I think direct realism is more plausible than indirect realism.

Direct realism claims that the physical objects, the environment, the world are not dependent on our minds, what we see and feel is real. That's the truth, as sure as I'm sitting here and typing my argument now, there are some books, a laptop, a bottle of water and a lamp on my desk, and they really exist, what I perceive are these objects themselves, they
From a scientific point of view, this phenomenon is called refraction. It is because the light moves faster in the air than in the water, so when the light enters the water, it bends away from its original path, and it makes the the stick looks bent. Instead of saying this is a sense data, I would rather conclude that it is because objects have different properties, such as the density of water and air.

We have to admit that when we perceive the physical world, we experience it, and there may be some mental images in our minds, however, does it mean we perceive the mental things instead of physical objects themselves? The primary and secondary sequence of this issue is very important, we perceive physical objects first, we experience it, then we have it on our mind.

Overall, direct realism is not a perfect theory, but compared to indirect realism, I insist on my view that direct realism is more plausible than indirect