This is not a logical point, this is an illogical point!

The reviewer complains that "it is unreasonable to treat these three competing theories as theories of visual processing. They may be theories of what vision is" What the HELL is the difference?

As for Gibson, he was a shameless naive realist! So he did in fact select one of the three alternatives, he selected naive realism. And Gibson did indeed claim that vision does not happen in the brain, so of course he did not bother looking for the computational mechanism of perception in the brain, he tried to find it out in the world! Never did find it! Cause it isn't there! Its in your brain, stupid! Just follow the nerves from the sensory organs - that's where they terminate! And that is where vision happens! It is amazing to what lengths people will go to try to justify their naive intuitions! Gibson's theory is magic. And this reviewer's defense of him shows that he too is a shameless naive realist!

That's ok, there is even room in science for absurd and untenable positions. But what this reviewer is saying is that papers that challenge this absurdly naive view should not be released to the community, because they expose the absurdity of this indefensible position!

This is what is wrong with the peer review process! There is no tolerance for dissenting opinions. Only naive realists need apply! They don't want to hear the other side!