quite popular, and have been ever since. Of course determining which one is truer is not an easy task, and as with any philosophical question, there is no right or wrong answer. I think before I can make my decision, I have to look at what the world of science today says about the two different theories, over 300 years after they were developed. The science of evolutionary psychology tells ups that no sharp line can be drawn between information that originates from environment, and information that is acquired through genes. However, in studying of the genetic model, it has been shown that genes cannot express themselves in bodily structures (i.e. the brain), unless they are in a very specific, suitable environment. Although no figures are strictly quantifiable, 99% of the information for building an organism may be thought of as located in the environment, and only 1% in the genes themselves (Steen). This is demonstrated by instances in which environmental information that comes through the senses activates certain genes, such as: cats are unable to perceive vertical lines if they are not exposed to them before a certain age, and children who have not heard a language before the age of ten will no longer retain the capacity to acquire one. When it comes to modern scientific views, it seems that Hume has the edge over Descartes. This seems a bit ironic considering that Descartes believed that knowledge is gained from a logical and scientific method. The very method that Descartes used to prove his ideas on human understanding has been used to disprove his ideas about innate truth. After reading passages from both writers, as well as interpretations on them, I have to say that I am not convinced that rationalism or empiricism is right. I believe that both had very convincing proofs of their ideas, that is, I could not find any holes in their reasonings. Empiricism is definitely favored by the genetic theory. However, I t...
