René Descartes was a French philosopher, mathematician, and writer and is revered as being, “the father of modern philosophy.” Descartes is most commonly known for his principle; "I think, therefore I am." He attempted to show the validity of using science as a method for knowledge, and how knowledge should come from the mind, rather than solely resting on our senses. Descartes did so by doubting all beliefs that come from the senses. This was a difficult to do, as almost all knowledge and beliefs, with the exception of innate knowledge, come from the senses. His aim is not to show that it is impossible for us to know that anything exists, but to prove that the knowledge we gain through the senses, is open to doubt. Descartes suggests that, he could simply be under the control of an all-powerful being deceiving him. Therefore, he mightn’t have a body at all, and could just be a brain under the control of an, “Evil Demon." I don’t believe his point is to be taken literally, but rather to demonstrate how the senses can be deceived. To illustrate our inability to know whether our senses are perceiving the truth. If we cannot trust our senses to relay the correct information around us, it follows that we cannot trust the conclusions we’ve made on the grounds of our senses. Descartes argument: 1. I have no empirical evidence to argue against the possibility that my senses are being deceived by an evil demon. 2. All knowledge comes from the senses. C. Therefore, I know nothing." Descartes argument is logically valid. It forces us to question the possibility of being controlled by something else. However, I do find flaws in premise 2, as it doesn’t allow for the existence of innate knowledge. There is knowledge that we are born with, that we do not gain through the use of our senses. For example, a baby knows how to drink and take in nutrients and vitamins from a breast, without depending on seeing another baby do it, or being