Still, how we interpret the facts and how we organize our ideas are based upon our knowledge obtained in the past. I am not sure if there should be a distinction between the knower and the known. What is known carries features of the knower. This argument brings forth the problem of objectivity and the process of finding a way towards its solution. It is obvious that scientists are not robots, but are human beings with human values that often play a major role in their selection of problems and in their conclusions.
Values enter both into the production and the conceptualization of what is being predicted.
The process of selecting a problem and a basic hypothesis for limiting the scope of the study and for defining and classifying the data relevant to that particular posing of the problem involve a choice on the part of the investigator. The choice is made from an indefinite number of possibilities. For example, a deeply religious person's research on the dating habits may involve hypotheses etc. Indeed, no social science or particular branch of social research can pretend to be amoral or apolitical. We use our values in our preferences.