Antifragile, published 13 years earlier, is on the NYT bestseller list the weekend of 2025-09-21.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
What would count as true or false
True: Antifragile, first published in late 2012 (about 13 years before), appears on a New York Times bestseller list (any category, such as paperback nonfiction, combined or advice) that was current on the weekend of 20–21 September 2025. That means a list released online in the week before that weekend, or dated for that week. Mostly true: it is on such a list that weekend, but a minor detail is off, for example the original publication was 12 rather than 13 years earlier. Mostly false: Antifragile was on an NYT list only in a week near that weekend but not that weekend, or it appeared only on a non-NYT bestseller list. False: the NYT lists current that weekend do not include Antifragile.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (2)
-
E1 Antifragile (book) - Wikipedia Wikipedia · 27 November 2012
“Antifragile was a New York Times Bestseller and praised by critics in a litany of notable periodicals”
-
E2 Antifragile (book) - Wikipedia Wikipedia · 27 November 2012
“Antifragile was a New York Times Bestseller and praised by critics in a litany of notable periodicals including the Harvard Business Review,[24] Fortune magazine,[25] the New Statesman,[26] and The Economist,[27] and Forbes.[28]”
Reasoning
E2 and E4 say only that Antifragile "was a New York Times Bestseller." Neither names a list, a category or a date. Nothing in the evidence shows whether Antifragile was on any NYT list that was current on the weekend of 20–21 September 2025. The evidence therefore does not settle the claim.
Cite this claim
Nassim Taleb, “Antifragile, published 13 years earlier, is on the NYT bestseller list the weekend of 2025-09-21.” (said 21 September 2025). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_d050b0f8f579, method 0.1.0+28da144b, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_d050b0f8f579
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Nassim Taleb
-
Mostly true
“adds 3 chapters and an appendix on Max Entropy distributions (includes Tsallis Entropy).”
-
Resolved true
“Just to remind people that I have NOTHING to do with "nassimtaleb. org"”
Nassim Taleb has no connection to the website "nassimtaleb.org".
-
Resolved true
“We respond to Tetlock et al. (2022) showing 1)”
-
Resolved true
“I am writing these lines from the vantage point of my specialty of decision making under uncertainty, not that of theology”
The author's specialty is decision making under uncertainty, not theology.
-
Mostly true
“This part in Fooled by Randomness was inspired by the psychology of depositors in #Lebanon who enjoyed steady AND high returns.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.