There is an unmet need for an affordable, high-quality, and non-thermally processed source of omega-3 fatty acids. Cold-pressed flaxseed oil comes closest to meeting these criteria. Flaxseed oil is also subject to rapid oxidative degradation. Sesame, black cumin, and apricot kernel oils are already used as functional foods and are more resistant to oxidative degradation. GC, HPLC, DPPH, the Folin−Ciocalteu method, and OXITEST were applied to the four cold-pressed oils and their binary blends with flaxseed oil. The fatty acid profile showed that the dominant fatty acid in flaxseed oil was linolenic acid with a content of 52.27 ± 0.17%, while oleic acid dominated in apricot kernel oil (69.45 ± 0.18%) and linoleic acid (58.80 ± 0.07%) in black cumin oil, while sesame oil was characterized by approximately equal proportions of oleic (42.21 ± 0.20%) and linoleic acids (43.37 ± 0.07%). The content of oleic acid showed a moderate, statistically significant correlation with the oxidative stability of oils and blends. The antioxidant capacity of flaxseed oil (25 ± 1.4 μmol TE/g) was most strongly influenced by the addition of black cumin oil (75 ± 3.5 μmol TE/g), so that the highest antioxidant capacity was achieved by the blend with an addition of 50% of this oil (57.5 ± 2.4 μmol TE/g). Oxidative stability tests show that apricot kernel oil stabilizes flaxseed oil the most and increases the oxidative stability of the blend by up to 60%.

This paper introduces ’pessimistic meta-deduction,’ a thought experiment that synthesizes Bayesian inference with the infinite monkey theorem and applies it to the concept of fallibilism. The initial (and wrong) blend advocated for a rationalistic analogue of a pessimistic meta-induction. Upon critical self-analysis, a partial refutation of the thought experiment has been revealed. The critique diminished the impact of pessimistic deduction, making it a subtly refined form of fallibilism. However, and most importantly, the implication thereof seems to indicate a potentially mathematically indeterminable problem in the context of any hypothetically true theory, fallibilistic conundrum. IntroductionIn an attempt to create a way to measure the probability of a counterintuitive paradigm (in plant stress physiology, so outside the scope of philosophy) being true, multiple ideas were combined. This particular idea, like many others, did not turn out to be fruitful from the standpoint of what was intended. It synthesized Bayesian probability with the infinite monkey theorem and applied it to the philosophy of science revealing new insights on fallibilism.Infinite monkey theoremIn exploring the philosophical implications of scientific knowledge and discovery, a turn to the illustrative thought experiment known as the Infinite Monkey Theorem was made. This theorem, in its popular form, is philosophical rather than mathematical and serves as a conceptual tool to elucidate ideas of randomness and probability in the context of an unlimited number of attempts.The theorem posits a scenario in which a monkey, engaged in the random act of striking keys on a typewriter, is allotted an infinite duration of time. Under these conditions, the thought experiment demonstrates that the monkey would reproduce any given text, such as a work of Shakespeare (the cited source used Hamlet as an example). In the thought experiment, each keystroke is presumed to be independent and random, devoid of any pattern. [1]In this paper, the infinite monkey theorem assumes metaphorical significance. It suggests that the endless pursuit of scientific inquiry, at least some of which is random, holds the potential to yield an inexhaustible spectrum of theories, data points, and ideas, much like the infinite keystrokes leading to every possible text.Introduction to Bayesian inferenceBayesian inference is a statistical method. It is based on Bayes’ theorem. Unlike frequentist statistics, Bayesian probability is inherently subjective. It measures the degree of belief. Bayesian inference is the process of updating beliefs in light of new evidence. It begins with a prior probability, which represents an initial degree of belief in a hypothesis. As new evidence is observed, this prior probability is updated, leading to a revised probability, known as the posterior probability. The theorem mentioned provides a formula to update beliefs about a hypothesis when presented with new evidence. It calculates the posterior probability by considering the prior probability, the likelihood of the evidence under the hypothesis, and the overall probability of the evidence. Prior beliefs can vary between individuals. With new evidence, however, the posterior beliefs of different individuals tend to converge, albeit that is subject to a similar interpretation of the new evidence. [2]Bayesian probability can be compared to several philosophical positions, notably empiricism and fallibilism. It is in accordance with empiricism by emphasizing evidence in shaping beliefs while also supporting the fallibilist notion that knowledge is a subject to revision.Pessimistic meta-inductionPessimistic meta-induction in the philosophy of science posits that, given the fact that most scientific theories have been falsified, so too will the ones currently accepted. The argument attempts to falsify the notion of scientific realism (with the scientific method, no less, thus it can be viewed as both a deductive and an inductive argument), which holds that successful scientific theories accurately describe reality. Historical examples bolstering it include the phlogiston theory and the ether theory. The phlogiston theory was completely replaced by the discovery of oxygen and the development of modern chemistry. Similarly, the ether theory, which posited a medium for light waves to travel through space, was rendered obsolete by the theory of relativity. [3]Numerous philosophical efforts went into refuting the conclusion, at least one of them claimed that few scientific theories were rejected and that the inductive evidence favors optimism. Ironically, in the first table of the cited paper, among the „uncontroversial“ scientific theories, there are at least three mutually exclusive theories: VSEPR, valence bond theory, and molecular orbital theory. [4] Each predicting the shape of the molecule in a very different way and each reaching, usually, the same conclusion.Contemporary significance of pessimistic meta-induction (chemistry as an example)The gross theoretical incompatibility when it comes to valence bond and molecular orbital theories is well known. [5] The valence bond theory is usually utilized in organic chemistry. It focuses on the concept of electron pairs shared between atoms, forming covalent bonds. It explains molecular shapes through the overlapping of the atomic orbitals between the molecules and through hybridization of the orbitals within one atom, where the atomic orbitals of an atom mix shapes to form new orbitals. Molecular orbital theory is usually preferred in inorganic chemistry. It conceptualizes electrons in molecules as occupying molecular orbitals that extend over the entire molecule. This theory explains not just the shape of molecules but also their magnetic properties and colors, which is unlike the valence bond theory. It should be noted that the source previously cited heterodoxically disagrees with the...