How convincing is the view that we are born with at least some innate knowledge?When considering this, one would have to define what is meant by innate knowledge. There are certainly some things babies are born knowing such as how to suck, be it their fingers, bottles, or breasts. One could argue they also know how to breathe but that could simply be an automatic or reflex action performed by their body. While much more may be known about the development of foetuses in the womb, more still exists that is yet to be discovered or ascertained.Depending on how fine a line is drawn on the definition of innate knowledge, because what is being considered is knowledge they are born with, this could be what they automatically know or could indeed have been learnt before their birth.As to how convincing this view is, admittedly, there certain things which we are never taught per se, but could indeed have been learnt. Relatively little is known about DNA, but it is said to be the code of life, then it is perhaps plausible that information that is vital to survival can be passed on genetically, thereby making it part of our being and something we could not know. This theory would validate the claim that we are born with some innate knowledge if proved true. This would also be the case if it came to light that we learn some things before birth as it would be innate knowledge we are born with.It can be noted that there are defining characteristics of babies other than physical appearances which they all exhibit. This would be a further point in favour of this view, making it the more so convincing. What has been asserted throughout this argument is that there are definitely things we are born knowing meaning it would be hard to prove contrary to this view of being born with innate knowledge.