Philosophers of science are still divided into two opposing camps in the process of trying to analyze this topic with psychological theory. The focus of the debate is whether scientific observation is only a static cognitive process of the brain or a dynamic cognitive process of the subject. For example, Fodor, as an opponent of "Observation Penetration Theory", emphasized that "perceptual processes are isolated, they provide input to advanced cognitive processes, but they cannot be infiltrated by cognition". His conclusion is that human beings have the same perceptual experience, so scientific observation as a perceptual process is objective. However, a large number of illusion experiments in psychology (such as duck-rabbit pun) prove that the process of the brain receiving external information in observation is not only in the perceptual stage, but also through a series of information processing, forming an overall impression of things and going through the cognitive reasoning stage of the big brain. Therefore, philosophers who tend to study scientific observation from a cognitive perspective believe that it is very narrow to keep scientific observation on the static reliability of perceptual devices, and the background theory has penetrated into the subject's observation process through the occurrence of cognition. Their defense is mainly carried out from the following two aspects:

(a) How the perception system works in the cognitive process.

In the cognitive process, the brain organizes sensory information into meaningful objects, and the working mode of the perceptual system can be divided into the following two levels. First of all, the perceptual system adopts a bottom-up processing method for the characteristics of stimuli that directly act on the senses, or it is called "data-driven processing". Some simple properties of external stimuli act on various sensory organs, forming our vision, hearing and smell. Its occurrence process can be simulated as the coding process of the brain. As long as the sensory area in the cerebral cortex works normally, the brain will produce the same code and picture for the same external stimulus. For example, when people recognize the shape of an object, the same spatial shape stimulus corresponds to a series of the same coding features, so the brain will accept the transfer of knowledge and form its own knowledge base. However, the subject's cognition will not only stay at this stage, but also experience the information processing process at the second level of the perceptual system-top-down processing mode, or "concept-driven processing". This method starts with perceiving the general characteristics of the object. The brain first forms a general concept, expectation or hypothesis about the perceptual object, which restricts the level and direction of cognition. The infiltration of background theory happened in this process. The needs, interests, hobbies, expectations of activities and preparations made in advance all have an impact in this processing process. Generally speaking, cognitive process is a process in which two processing modes of perceptual system work together. Without the direct effect of external stimuli, the top-down processing of perception can only produce hallucinations; If there is only a low level of external stimulation, the thinking work that the brain has to undertake will be too heavy, and the speed of accepting external information will slow down, and even it will not constitute a normal cognition of things. In different situations, the perceptual system also has different emphasis on these two processing methods. In the process of better conditions or less attention from subjects, the bottom-up approach is generally adopted; However, in the process of relative deterioration of the environment or more attention paid by the main body, the top-down approach will gradually increase and even occupy a dominant position. The process of scientific observation is a process that the subject pays more attention to. Therefore, philosophers who advocate cognitive analysis have come to the conclusion that although we can't accurately describe the relationship between the two working modes of perception and provide an accurate model for the process of scientific observation, we provide more convincing evidence to rule out the conclusion that the observation theory is not loaded.

(2) The inhibition of illusion in cognitive process.

In some cases, the brain will have so-called illusions. The relativism conclusion reached by absolutizing the topic of "observation penetration theory" exaggerates the scope of illusion, thus asserting that scientific activities have lost objectivity. From the cognitive point of view, the causes of illusion can not only be recognized, but also be corrected. In fact, the brain itself has the function of coordinating and solving illusions. Neuroscience research shows that specific or general perceptual devices are plastic, and the formation of perception is limited by the interaction between the brain and the environment. Moreover, through perceptual learning, the connection mode of neurons in the perceptual system can be effectively changed, and the "visual inversion" experiment is an effective proof of this conclusion. After a period of training, people can adapt to this visual environment and make behavioral adjustments when their vision is reversed. It can be proved that the expected hypothesis guiding the cognitive process has changed through the acquisition of new experience, that is, the perceptual system has adjusted the direction of the cognitive process through learning and avoided the deviation of the subject's behavior. Therefore, when expectations and feelings do not match, the perceptual awakening system (%,6.7) may awaken attention and suppress expectations. Psychologists use current physical theories to describe the occurrence of this awakening. For example, the research of Gersberg and others shows that if attention is caused by the mismatch between expectation and reality, then the input from the awakening system constitutes a reset wave, which makes the brain aware of this mismatch, thus inhibiting the formation of perceptual stereotypes and making it possible for cognitive errors not to occur.