The wiki on Direct and Indirect Realism seems to claim that indirect realism is part of natural science. The wiki defines indirect realism as follows:
indirect or representative realism [is] the philosophical position that our conscious experience is not of the real world itself but of an internal representation, a miniature virtual-reality replica of the world.
It links indirect realism to natural science in the following manner:
Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the accepted view of perception in natural science that states that we do not and cannot perceive the external world as it really is but know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is.
And the above claim links to a footnote that supports it as follows:
Hearing (or audition) is the ability to perceive (create ideas of) sound by detecting vibrations. The sound waves of language cannot perceive directly. They are only heard, interpreted and understood because the physical waves were transformed into ideas (Mental representation of sound wages) by our brains.
This all seems reasonable, but I'm inclined to think that natural science would assume direct realism, the belief that our conscious experience is of the real world, instead. And I'm also confused by why there's scientific realism if natural science assumes indirect realism, unless scientific realism is a form of indirect realism.