I'm currently in a class where we are studying, among other things, the philosophy of perception. The papers we have read so far, for example Grice's "The Causal Theory of Perception" and Strawson's "Perception and it's Objects," emphasize a very subjective, observer centered theory of perception. The viewpoint I am talking about can be seen in this article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/ . It seems strange to me that in all of the analyses of perception I have read so far, the physical, scientific point of view is completely ignored.
For example, if someone asked me what it meant to see a table, I would say that perceiving the table means that light reflects off the table and hits light receptors in the retina, activating certain parts of the brain. A neuroscientist or biologist could of course make this story much more precise.
Now, of course science does not have all the details figured out, but it seems to me that the physical of theory of perception that science provides is clearly superior to say, a vague "sense data" theory of perception. All of the problems in the above SEP article seem to disappear if we just accept the biological story of perception.
My question is, then, why is there such a separation between science and the philosophy of perception? A lot of the notions described in the SEP article, like openness to the world, seem, frankly, quaint and archaic. Why do people not accept the scientific analysis of perception as obviously superior?