1.0 Current definitions are inadequate for the purposes of Science What is the definition of the word table? One dictionary defines this word as:
“ An article of furniture supported by one or more vertical legs and having a flat horizontal surface.” 
Another has a similar descriptive definition but adds a purpose:
“ A table is a piece of furniture composed of a horizontal surface and a base. It is often used to hold objects or food at a convenient or comfortable height when sitting.” 
The devil’s advocate instinctively asks whether the word chair also meets these definitions. After all a seat, a stool, and a bench are also pieces of furniture that sometimes consist of a horizontal surface and one or more legs. The tie breaker is that we don’t typically place food on chairs. We typically place our buns on chairs:
“ chair: A piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person.” 
“ A chair is a piece of furniture for sitting, consisting of a seat, a back, and sometimes arm rests, commonly for use by one person. Chairs also often have legs to support the seat raised above the floor.” 
But the devil’s advocate may insist that he sometimes eats where others put their heiny. Of course, this is his prerogative, but the point is that ‘flat surface, four legs, and used for eating’ does not alone differentiate between table and chair. So how many more attributes should we list before we have a precise definition of table that helps us distinguish it from a chair and that we can use consistently in a scientific discussion? Should we add that it is made of wood, painted blue, that you clean it every day, or cover it with a tablecloth? Will these resolutely differentiate between a table and a chair? Just as alarming self-defeating, it becomes apparent that the more attributes we include, the less universal the word table becomes. There are tables which are made of metal, others that are neither flat nor horizontal, and still others that have no legs. By defining the word table so narrowly as to eliminate possible confusion with the word chair, we risk excluding a whole set of objects that people typically identify as tables. So we’re back to square one: What then is the definition of the word table? Is there a definition that we can use consistently? 2.0 Concepts we define; objects we point to The answer is that for the purposes of science, we don’t and can’t define objects. In science, you point to an object with your index finger and designate it with a name. Imagine that you are shipwrecked on an island. The next day another castaway joins you, but he doesn’t speak your language. If you want to teach your buddy the word table, you have no choice but to point to an object and utter the word table. You may have pointed to a flat rock or to a level portion of earth, and your acquaintance may still not understand what a table is used for, but henceforth your interlocutor identifies the word table with whatever you fingered. We have understanding. We have communication. The word table as it relates to an object is ONLY pertinent to the instant presentation. This use of the word table is not as a category. It does not include all the tables in the universe. When you say table and point without more, you are referring exclusively to the shape in front of you. In science, we can only define the ‘concept’ table, and here there are two possibilities: we can either describe or explain. A description is ideally objective. We are not saying that ‘a’ table is made of wood and has four legs, because this is an opinion, too general, and certainly a wrong one. We are saying that this table is made of wood and has four legs. These are facts that follow from the definitions of words such as made, wood, four, and legs. If these characteristic or attributes are not pertinent to the instant theory, the ordinary meanings of these words suffice. Otherwise, the onus is on the prosecutor to define the terms that make or break his theory. For example, if the instant theory has to do with explaining why a daltonic man confused the table with a chair, then the prosecutor may have to define what he means by red or by color. Otherwise, it may not be important to state that ‘this table is red’ other than to provide a more thorough description to the juror. 3.0 Description versus narrative In ordinary speech we routinely hear statements such as ‘Please describe what happened’ or ‘Describe how you make a table.’ The verb describe is generally taken to be a synonym of narrate, recite, recount, rehearse, relate, and report:
“describe: To give an account of in speech or writing.” 
However, if to describe means to regurgitate what happened, what word should we reserve to ‘describe’ physical objects? I argue that in science we must unambiguously differentiate between these two concepts:
description (to describe): is a listing of the physical attributes of a static object. We use adjectives to describe objects (e.g., big, red, straight, continuous, flat, bounded, etc). narrative (to narrate): is a listing of events, usually in chronological order. We use adverbs to narrate dynamic concepts (e.g., perpetual, incessant, constant, etc.) [For the purposes of Physics, such words are exclusively adverbs because they may only be used in the context of motion. Hence, the grammatical categories of ordinary grammar do not apply.]
Therefore, for the purposes of a precise, rational, scientific dissertation, we don’t describe ‘what happened.’ We narrate ‘how’ events occurred. A narrative is ideally objective, a mechanical run down of events. Think of a robot telling a story. It should sound impersonal, free of emotion, un-opinionated, boring. Think of the objective cop: ‘The facts, ma’am, just the facts!’ A description belongs to the hypothesis stage of the scientific method and is pertinent to the Exhibits. The narrative also belongs to the hypothesis stage, but is pertinent to the facts. In Science, it is not a fact that this is a cube. A cube is an object and an object can only be named. An example of a fact – a static fact – is that a cube has six sides. A ratio such as π is another example of a static fact. This statement flows from definitions of words such as six and side. In contrast, there are dynamic facts, such as that the signal of light travels at 300,000 km/sec. Rates may at best be dynamic facts. 4.0 Explanation versus narrative Is it possible to explain rather than to narrate how a table was built? The answer is yes. If we know exactly how a table was made or have filmed the process, there is no mystery. The proponent is merely synthesizing his version of the facts in a statement of the facts. The witness is testifying, hopefully objectively. He could not have filmed the location of every atom during the construction (the actual fact). He can only provide a film clip of what he regards the most relevant milestones. Nevertheless, this is his version, his particular view, his film clip. But what happens when the proponent does not know how the table was built? Then his only alternative is to theorize. He speculates about the process that resulted in the finished product. Here the manufacturing of the table is what the theory is about. Note that this is not a why but a how question. The prosecutor is not investigating why the carpenter constructed the chair (reason). He is theorizing about how (cause) it could have been made. Therefore, in science, we do not only theorize about whys. We also theorize about hows. Indeed, astronomy, paleontology, and geology are normally 'how' sciences. The paleontologist explores mechanisms, not reasons. There are few, if any, ‘why’ questions in the natural sciences. Evolution, for example, is not an issue of why (purpose), but an issue of how (cause). The confusion comes because researchers and theorists often phrase how questions in why format. The astronomer may inadvertently and colloquially ask, ‘ Why did that star explode?’ when he is really asking, ‘By what mechanism was the explosion triggered?’ How did it happen? The word why implies purpose, reason, plan, premeditation. Only living beings may plan ahead. We can ask, ‘Why did the lion eat the wildebeest?’, meaning what went through the animal’s mind. What was the lion thinking about? Why did the lion decide to go on the attack? We cannot ask in science, ‘Why does the Earth go around the Sun?’ The Earth has no purpose or reason. The correct way of formulating this question, the real context is, 'How is it that the Earth goes around the Sun? By what mechanism?'What invisible physical entity binds the Earth to the Sun?
Therefore, there are two kinds of explanations and both of them have to do with the theory phase of the scientific method. We can theorize about how an event occurred (cause and effect) and we can theorize about why (purpose). Why questions are prohibited at the hypothesis stage. The statement of the facts exclusively addresses how questions. Conversely, a how question is prohibited at theory if it is a narrative (i.e., formulated as a statement of the facts, testimony). An objective listing of events contrasts with the purpose of the step known as theory, which consists of an objective statement of how the prosecutor believes an event occurred. The prosecutor is attempting to explain to the juror how he thinks an event happened so that the juror will understand the mechanism. This is where religion and science part company. Religion is unscientific because it incongruously formulates how as why questions. The traditional religionist attempts to explain the reason we are here and predictably this always takes him to God. The theist is unaware that he has already answered his question when he asks why. Why (purpose) already presupposes God. Only a living organism can premeditate and plan the future. Thus, God is not presented as a hypothesis (i.e., the anthropomorphic god that chronologically creates the world, Man, the animals, etc.). God is presented as a theory. God is not the mechanical being of Old Testament fame, a sorcerer that merely waves His magic wand (cause). God is ‘the’ explanation of why (purpose) we are here (reason). In traditional religion, the question is incongruously twisted around. According to religion, Love exists for a reason. Love becomes a why as opposed to a how question, a reason as opposed to a mechanical process, a subjective explanation rather than an objective narrative of an occurrence. Religion is unscientific because it converts hypotheses into theories. In traditional religion, God is not part of a narrative of how the world got started. This is trivial in religion. God is an explanation of why the world got started. That Jesus performed miracles, was crucified, and came back from the dead is not important in Christianity. These are how questions (i.e., what happened) and to a Christian they are not important. The Christian is concerned with why these events occurred: for what reason. Hence, words such as God, heaven, and cross are not objects that belong to a dull narrative, an enumeration of facts. In religion, each of these words embodies an entire theory. 5.0 Conclusion For the purposes of science, a table is an object. The prosecutor points to and names it at the exhibits stage of the scientific method. The object is assigned this name only for the purposes of the instant theory. The prosecutor uses adjectives to describe the object for the benefit of the jury. If any of these attributes are pertinent to the instant theory, the prosecutor must define the terms that are relevant as well. The prosecutor may now use the word table in his statement of the facts, in his theory, or in both. We typically accept this description as a definition. The prosecutor may narrate what a table is typically used for, who built it, where we find it inside a house, etc. It can also be used in a narrative which purpose is to objectively list the steps that were required to build it or to state some other static or dynamic fact about it. If, instead, the prosecutor is speculating about how the table was built, what a table is used for, who built it, etc., or intends to use the word in an explanation of a physical phenomenon (e.g., why the table was carried or why it is here), then he is now using the word in a theory, in an explanation. As an object, a table merely has form.
A table is where we eat.
No, a table is what I put my bible and my bell on!