The scientists are trying to determine why we judge distance differently, and found that each individual will consistently have problems with particular areas in their field of sight.

They think this is a result of various imperfections forming when your eyes connected to your brain.

Not only that, Kant himself structured the idea of the world outside our field of experience in a critique of pure reason. Since then the idea that our experience is a perfect one and that all our ideas come from our experience has been questioned.

This is why when the interviewed said "We assume our perception is a perfect reflection of the physical world around us" it was really strange for me. Only those unaware of hundreds of years of advance in philosophy assume that. And this highlights possibly a field that is very much lacking in science, the critique of thought itself.

> Only those unaware of hundreds of years of advance in philosophy assume that

So then, nearly all children, and most of your average working-class people? Seems to me the author was just tailoring the piece for a layperson audience, which is kinda the default writing approach.

I would say even a lot of very educated people, despite maybe having read about these topics, will still feel and act as if what they are perceiving is reality itself.

I'm actually very surprised to see so many comments here dismissing the article as something almost obvious.

that is because this thread is about a scientific publication in a respectable university site, it suffers a different level of scrutiny.

It really makes more sense as a rethorical and argumentative artifact. I guess I misinterpreted the purpose of that statement.

the why

Did they forget to say why in the article ? I couldn't find it.