section_heading: Kritika
paragraph_text: Dok su istaknuti društveni znanstvenici poput Randall Collins,<ref>Collins, Randall. 2002. "Black's Contributions to a General Theory of Conflict." Contemporary Sociology 31(6):655-658. Karen A. Cerulo,<ref>Cerulo, Karen A. 2002. "The Behavior of Culture ... Courtesy of Donald Black." Contemporary Sociology 31(6):652-655.David Skulli, <ref>Sciulli, David. 1996. "Response to Senechal—Courage and Care in "Blackian" Social Theory: A Word in Praise of Senechal de la Roche." Sociological Forum 11(1):129-133. i Jonathan H. Turner<ref>Turner, Jonathan H. 2002. "Why are Elegant Theories Under-Utilized by Sociologists?" Contemporary Sociology 31(6):664-668. pohvaljeni aspekti čiste sociologije, ovaj je pristup također kritiziran. Kam K. Vong [5] kritizira scijentizam čiste sociologije, David F. Greenberg [6] njegovu upotrebu objašnjenja zakona pokrivanja, a Thomas J. Greenberg. Scheff [7] - njegov pokušaj disciplinske čistoće. <ref>Wong, Kam C. 1995. "Black's Theory on the Behavior of Law Revisited." International Journal of the Sociology of Law 23(1):189-232.Douglas A. Marshall<ref>Greenberg, David F. 1983. "Donald Black's Sociology of Law: A Critque." Law and Society Review 17:337-368.[8] nudi proširenu kritiku sustava. Marshall tvrdi da je, suprotno Blackovom navedenom cilju da sociologiju učini znanstvenijom, njegov pristup zapravo u suprotnosti sa suvremenim znanstvenim vrijednostima i praksama-tema koja se ponavlja Stephen Turner<ref>Marshall, Douglas A. 2008. “The Dangers of Purity: On the Incompatibility of ‘Pure Sociology’ and Science” The Sociological Quarterly 49(2): 209-235.[9]