master through learning; man 'knows' through learning how to
do an immense number of things in the way of arts and abilities;
he also "knows" physics, and 'knows' mathematics; he knows
that, what, and how. . . The issues that must be faced before firm
use is gained are: Does the word 'knowledge' indicate something
the organism possesses or produces? Or does it indicate something
the organism confronts or with which it comes into contact? Can
either of the viewpoints be coherently maintained? If not, what
change in preliminary description must be sought?" ¹

This seems to leave the economists where they were before,
up a tree, or rather up many different trees in a number of different
forests. There is in the quotation no light illuminating a path lead-
ing to common ground.

Fortunately, Dewey and Bentley have not left us up a tree;
they have descended to firm ground where they have identified
some objects that may be helpful. However, before discussing these
objects, brief comment on Dewey and Bentley's method is advisable.

In their attempt to know more about "knowledge," Dewey
and Bentley have regarded knowing as an aspect of human behavior.
No inner knower, or mind, or soul that does the knowing is assumed.
They take man as they find him behaving in his cosmos or universe,
never apart from it. Likewise they take whatever is known in the
cosmos or universe as they find it, never in isolation from it. ²

As a result of applying this procedure in their inquiry into
"knowledge," Dewey and Bentley describe knowings as the observed
language behavior of men concerned with naming or designating.
And an integral part of the naming transaction is the known. ³ In

-8-