Culture. It's rather interesting that people use the word so easily and consistently without knowing the definition of the word. Although, it is difficult to correctly use the word when there doesn't seem to be an absolute or standard definition of the word. Type "the definition of Culture" into a Google search, for example, and you'll get hits from numerous sources and articles with varying descriptions. So, as scholars, how do we accurately study "cultures"? What is "culture"? In the Encyclopaedia of Cultural Anthropology multiple theories are introduced and proposed, yet all are mostly disproven or replaced by another theory. Even the most modern theory proposed in the article, regarded as the "How Come? And To What Effect?" theory, has its share of problems and inaccuracies; it's a mess of systems, human interactions and exchanges, and scientific considerations, etc. The article also discusses the failure for anthropologists to correctly distinguish the term's reference (the phenomenal vs the ideational order). Therefore, with that many conflicts, it's no wonder that the proposed question: "What is culture?" is a highly improbable one to answer perfectly. The same train of thought (and the vast problems) are transferable to the Ethnicity and Religion and, to an extent, Language definition debate as well. Though there are theories and common denominators, yet no absolute description, system, or categorical list that can encompass the whole and define the subject. However, ethnicity, religion and language are more so under the Culture umbrella than horizontal fields of study. It could be argued that those three focuses can be somewhat more defined and are not as elusive as Culture. The study of the three topics are more invested in the preservation and chronological and geographical plotting and close examinations of each of the particulars in the category.
Perhaps then, to study "culture" is to dissect (and maybe then, compare) the definite scientific...