Define a simple linear regression. What is/are the difference(s) between simple linear regression and a multiple regression?
Define a dependent variable. Define an independent variable.
Example: A real estate agent likes to predict the selling price of a home based on several variables: size, location, condition. # of bedrooms, etc.
Based on the example, what is/are the independent variable(s)? What is/ are the dependent variable(s?)
Provide two examples of situations in business, or your field, when regression is used. Explain each situation in detail.
Robert Merton and the institutional objectives of sorted out science. Do you believe that the regulating structure of science is working today? Why? Robert Merton has been hailed as the most vital American humanist of the twentieth century. His oeuvre incorporates chips away at the hypothesis of information, the humanism of science and also useful and auxiliary investigation. This exposition will analyze a standout amongst the most noteworthy cases of Merton, that will be that science is controlled by four particular standards. While his work has seemingly to the establishment of an entire scholastic discipline, the standardizing idea of science itself joins different strands of enquiry that are demonstration of the assorted individual and logical interests of Merton. In nuce, Merton’s case that science is basically a regularizing try led to the tune of shared moral tenets, straddles the fields of the rationality of science and speculations of information similarly as it draws on suppositions situated in the space of good reasoning and the hypothesis of truth. The exposition will approach this complex in the accompanying way. To begin with, Merton’s cases will be plot in however much detail as could be expected. Second, the article will draw the primary lines of feedback that Merton’s hypothesis of logical ethos has pulled in. At long last, a case of logical discussion will be analyzed in perspective of Merton’s case that will enable us to survey the legitimacy and handiness of Merton’s hypothesis. Merton’s theory about the regulating structure of science returns to an article he distributed initially in 1942, from the get-go in his career. The paper is short and, except for saying two works by Talcott Parsons, makes no references to its quick philosophical setting, the rising humanism of science. Besides, Max Weber isn’t specified at all through the piece. In any case the article has turned out to be a standout amongst the most celebrated and discussed productions in the hypothesis of science. Merton fights that science is described by four interconnected yet unmistakable authoritative standards. These standards are moral in nature and capacity as auxiliary goals for science. To begin with, science is widespread seeing that commitments to it are ‘surveyed on legitimacy and significance'. Second, researchers judge logical propositions against observational material that is accessible, and ‘suspend judgment’ until the point that every one of the actualities are known. Merton calls this ‘a methodological and institutional mandate'. Third, Merton keeps up that researchers are focused on disinterestedness, and don’t see self-enthusiasm as a reasonable inspiration for logical work. The goal for researchers is to progress logical information as opposed to individual interests. Fourth, logical learning that has turned out to be solid and exact is to be promptly accessible to each individual from mainstream researchers, a marvel that Merton calls ‘socialism’.  Merton’s draw of every one of the four standards in the article is brief. Sorted out incredulity gets particularly short shrift with pretty much two paragraphs. In these two sections Merton prominently neglects to give a meaning of it out and out and rather talks about the more extensive setting of this ‘methodological and institutional mandate' for researchers. The inquiry is whether Merton has exhibited a photo of science that is exact today. The issue is that it isn’t exactly clear what Merton really says. He has been adulated for his expert articulation, yet his splendid articulacy some of the time darkens the significance of his theory. The exposition will now look at a portion of the more clear reactions. The primary trouble concerns the central purpose of Merton’s contention. In belligerence that four regularizing standards compose logical undertaking, would he say he is making a standardizing or enlightening point? Are these perceptions of experimental nature or do they layout prescriptive standards that should manage researchers in their work? We may take Merton’s proposal to express some more broad prescriptive principles of science, which in a perfect world should be connected in the researcher’s work keeping in mind the end goal to encourage logical advancement.  Merton makes a point then which requires experimental check. He needs to demonstrate that science led along these lines advances logical progression which logical work led in opposition to these standards would not. Naturally this is difficult to demonstrate. It requires an authentic contention, a story of fruitful logical advancement, which to a specific degree he endeavors to give in his article. So what does Merton endeavor to state with his four criteria? The rundown of standards does not enable us to separate among legitimate and invalid science. It additionally neglects to give us direction concerning what great and terrible science is in a more broad setting. Maybe sooner or later, science requires mystery and the avoidance of a few sections of established researchers from the aftereffects of logical work. Truth be told, commentators called attention to that Merton’s theory takes a shot at the exceptional supposition that just scholarly science will be science. Modern research should naturally neglect to follow his principles of enquiry and thus can’t try to be science. A strange end since a lot of sciences advance is owed to look into in a monetary and innovative condition, led for reasons of benefit and the promotion of self-intrigue. However, maybe every one of these elucidations of Merton’s contention disregard the self-evident. Conceivably, his four gauges of logical revelation just mention an objective fact on the idea of science all in all. Along these lines Merton must be comprehended to make an essentially expressive point that logical lead is managed by standards that may not generally be unequivocal and unstated. In the event that we would take him to contend this, his contention then out of the blue fits into the more extensive practical hypothesis of science that he was quick to advocate. Merton contends that the adherence to the four standards creates an arrangement of learning that has highlights that we connect with science, and which have therefore have come to be synonymous with science. The logical ethos is then just a verifiable side-effect and Merton’s compact plan of this ethos in four standards of logical conduct basically depicts the manner by which science is finished. Research that does not agree to these guidelines may in any case be science yet does not add to science as an intelligible arrangement of human conduct. Merton’s standardizing structure of science along these lines reveals to us something about the manner by which science has come to maintain itself as an arrangement of knowledge. The four measures of logical enquiry satisfy a capacity in creating orderly information that adds to the progression of science as an intelligent arrangement of human connection inside a (scholarly) network.>