The phrase "argument in the history of" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing a specific debate or contention that has occurred within a particular historical context or field.
Example: "The argument in the history of philosophy regarding the nature of reality has shaped many modern theories."
Alternatives: "debate in the annals of" or "dispute in the timeline of".
It was also an example of the "linear argument" in the history of science that was expounded by Vannevar Bush, James Conant and other academics who were involved in World War II's scientific endeavors and wanted to encourage continued government funding of pure research: The theoretical discoveries of pure science would lead to applied science breakthroughs and new technological inventions.
This suggests that the paradigm example of argument in the history of logic — a giving of reasons for some conclusion can, without elaboration, be classified only as a "proto-argument".
Remember my story about our biggest argument in the history of our marriage?
The fake news meme has become one of the most troubling arguments in the history of contemporary journalism, ever since Donald Trump used the term to describe CNN at his first press conference as president.
She told me that "A Tale of Love and Darkness" should be read, in part, as an argument about the history of Zionism.
"You can make an argument that the history of the game in Africa is as old as the game itself," said Peter Alegi, a professor of African history at Michigan State University and author of "African Soccerscapes: How a Continent Changed the World's Game".
The latter include fallacies; argument schemes; the rhetorical features of argument; dialectical obligations; dialogue theory; kinds of argument (deductive, inductive, conductive); the role of images and diagrams in argument; empirical studies of argument; communication in argumentative contexts; and the history of argument analysis.
For those without an hour to spare, here's a digest of Prof. Simon Schaffer's argument for 'symmetrical' explanations in the history of science, particularly when we're trying to understand disagreements: Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz had many disputes, including one about Newton's formulation of the law of gravity.
The connection between the arguments and positions in 1930s scientific epistemology or philosophy of science and the arguments in the debates in the history of economics points to a kind of unity and continuity in Neurath's thinking in which specific claims in epistemology and social thought are historically as well as conceptually connected.
But his real objections involve a complicated argument about the history of Paris.
All are highly articulate, thoughtful, well reasoned in their arguments and well versed in the history of the Middle East.
