Anaximander en de geboorte van het wetenschappelijke denken

Rovelli's choice to highlight Anaksimandros feels deliberate, but I wonder what led him to emphasize this figure over others in early science history.

The way Rovelli explains abstract concepts without oversimplifying was impressive. I'm curious if readers found it helpful or still challenging.

Balancing accuracy with narrative flow must be tricky — I wonder what criteria Rovelli used to shape the story of scientific emergence.