Having heard these arguments for years, I have the feeling that they lead to caricatures of positions and to a variety of misunderstandings. I think we would all be better served by forgetting the terms "direct" and "indirect." Another way to look at Gibson is to say that he was looking for information in the world that organisms use to guide their actions and accomplish their purposes. In other words, he tried "looking out" rather than "looking in." To the extent that one can account for the organism's behavior by doing so, one has solved the problem that one was studying. Fair enough. Take it as an attitude about what kind of approach is most likely to be successful. Gibson found it productive and held his "radical" position to stimulate his thinking and research.
If you make your bets the other way, by all means "look in." You can have all the representations and computations you like. But you can't just invent them willy-nilly to solve every problem that you encounter. They too have to be principled and must be evidence- based.
In my opinion, the answer is to do research (not to try to make fun of one another or keep one's students from learning that there are other views). Let the approach that solves the problems win the day! And don't be too surprised to come to the resolution that Neisser came to in his 1976 book ... that both views have important things to teach us.