Is value-free sociology only a myth?

The concept of value-free sociology was proposed by Max Weber, who claimed that sociologists should not bring their evaluation into their scientific work. 
The original idea of August Comte, the founder of sociology, was that this science would play an essential role in the organization of society. However, it should not become a purely academic science but rather an applied, practical one to help social development in this way. However, according to Comte, he cannot accept such a role without passing on value judgments.
    Weber was the first to come up with the concept of sociology as a non-evaluative science. In Max Weber’s opinion, value-free means the formulation of subjective desires. The irrational elements inherited from the value systems of religion, politics, and worldviews distort the cognitive process and enter science. His speech was a reaction to society’s criticism of the time, which blamed sociology for its subjectivity. Thus, Max Weber reacts with his concept of “value-free” science, which should maintain its positivist tendency to maintain objectivity and avoid distorting facts. Emile Durkheim supports this idea by saying that sociology must not be individual or social because it is no longer a science but a reform effort.
Weber acknowledges that it is impossible to avoid the researcher’s subjective preferences because his private interests and preferences give only the definition of a research problem.
In this case, Weber seeks to find a solution to the competing demands of reason and faith. And its solution was to ensure the autonomy of both spheres of activity. For him, the concept of non-evaluative science did not mean the exclusion of conscience at all. From Weber’s point of view, the doctrine of non-evaluation attempts to compromise between the two most profound traditions of Western thought – reason and faith. Finally, he declares that conscience is the highest value, the manifestation of the “transcendental I,” superior to reason.
Even more consistent in this attitude were his followers in empirical sociology. The most important representative of this school is Paul Felix Lazarsfeld. He stated that proper knowledge should not depend on any value system, and sociological learning methods should be as accurate as a surgeon’s knife.
However, this concept was criticized many times. In 1938 R. Lynd spoke out against this concept in his work “Knowledge for What?”. He tried to prove that sociology is always an instrument of social reform, correction or change. Therefore, it must formulate practical recommendations that have the nature of a value court. Alvin W. Gouldner even calls the concept of non-evaluative sociology a myth he likens to the Minotaur. It is an overstatement that compares the existence of the Minotaurs, which is considered sacred because they are half-human. Half bull and, therefore very unlikely, cannot be refuted after all. The argument for non-evaluative sociology invokes reason however ignores experience.
All opponents agree that it is impossible for a scientist to completely exclude his personal preferences and beliefs from his research. Thus, we can only ask researchers not to state their judging judgments, but they will still remain immanently contained in their definitions of research questions, topic choices, and results. Suppose they are not stated clearly and out loud. In that case, there is a risk that consumers of their research will be subconsciously infected with their opinions and values without being aware of the presumption that they are consuming the results of value-neutral science. Gouldner puts it: “The only choice is whether to express one’s values as openly and honestly as possible or commit to the futile ritual of moral neutrality that leaves one at the mercy of irrationality because it urges him to ignore that reason is vulnerable to prejudice.
In this context, Vilfredo Pareto speaks of residues and derivatives, suggesting that the researcher’s personal feelings lead him to say what he perceives as an ideal state and not objectively observed reality.
This topic undoubtedly reflects the context of the time, which forced Max Weber to strongly advocate scientific neutrality and pointed out that scientific objectivity is something utterly different from moral indifference. Gouldner argues that this attitude was probably a reaction to the awareness of absolute helplessness against deepening social problems, and sociology was in no way able to contribute to their solution.
The answer to the concept of non-evaluative sociology is engaged sociology, which admits evaluation courts or points out that evaluation cannot be completely avoided. It, therefore, focuses primarily on how to reduce the deformation of knowledge thus created.
He tries to do it mainly in these ways:
1. A clear definition of the terms used
2. Sociologists will be systematically practising the ideal of scientific lenses
We will maximally formalize and quantify
3. knowledge, thus relieving it of emotional deposition
4. we confront our own knowledge with the existing knowledge and with the opinion of the scientific community
5. by clearly distinguishing between the role of the sociologist as a professional and the sociologist as a citizen
At present, engaged sociology mainly represents left-wing currents of thought (critical and radical sociology) based on the work of Charles Wright Mills.