Opposing Views On The Study Of Learning And Memory

Throughout history, the study of learning and memory has presented varied perspectives on how the mind develops. History has shown numerous conflicting standpoints when addressing and researching the way in which people acquire information and use it. The debate between nature and nurture dates back to the fourth century BC, when Aristotle and Plato presented their respective arguments in the philosophical battles that dominated society at the time. Aristotle, who is considered the founder of empiricism, believed in the idea that knowledge is learned solely from experience, while Plato, the founder of nativism, believed that human knowledge is inborn. These two philosophers would set the stage for the nativist and empiricist schools of thought,

Descartes was in favor of nativism, and was the first to propose a reflex arc in the body, that indicated the body and mind were separate entities. Locke, on the other hand, took concepts from Aristotle, and proposed that the mind was a blank slate waiting to be written on and that the goal was to identify the separate elements of consciousness. Leibniz would build on Descartes’s ideas, however, his moderate stance in the debate was that three quarters of human knowledge is learned, but only one quarter is inborn. William James proceeded to develop on empiricism, and believed that memory was built up through networks of associations. The ideas created by these early philosophers would set the stage for psychological research for the foreseeable

“A decade of epigenetic studies in neuroscience and epidemiology has profoundly undermined any residual dualism of nature and nurture, ‘biological’ and ‘social’ causes in developmental processes” (Meloni, 2014). This statement highlights epigenetics, the study of change in heritable traits, and the notion that genomes are social and flexible, which would refute empiricism and nativism as operating distinctly from one another, but rather indicates that there is an interaction of internal and external factors. A significant flaw of Darwin’s theory that pertains to the nature and nurture debate is the fact that his belief was perceived to be nativist, however, survival competencies that organisms develop over generations are susceptible to change due to the environment organisms are immersed in. Darwin seamlessly transcended the debate with his views, and as a result, his theory of natural selection turns out to be irrelevant. However, Darwin’s initial writings do reveal that he didn’t completely disregard the effects of the universe; “When Darwin discovered the dynamic process of natural selection…he was never able to ignore the powerful experience of the beauty and