What Is the Difference Between “I Am Certain” and “It Is Certain”, and Is Passionate Conviction Ever Sufficient for Justifying Knowledge?

In order to answer the first part of the question, the term “certain” needs to be defined. It is important to note that there could be a number of different ways of defining certainty. For example, the definitions “perfect knowledge that has total security from error” and “a mental state of being without doubt” are very different from one another. One implies more room for error than the other. Two very specific different messages are conveyed when one says “I am certain” versus “it is certain.” When one says “I am certain,” it is understood by the recipient to mean that the individual is in the highest mental state of being without a doubt. However, this differs from “it is certain” because the word “it” implies a consensus gentium, an agreement, without a doubt, between many humans in making a knowledge claim. In both cases a knowledge claim is being made with confidence, but one person’s certainty is based on the individual’s perception, intuition, reason or emotion, whereas a whole group of mankind making a knowledge claim depends on many different people’s perceptions, reasons, and emotions. Since a great number of people consists of many individuals and their unique perceptions, reasons, and emotions, when a knowledge claim is made by all, the claim is transferred from simply a belief to a justified belief. However, even though the number of people may vary from one to many, we must take into consideration the fact that there are various degrees of certainty. How would one quantify amount of certainty one holds, or be able to create a universal scale for measuring degrees of certainty? Certainty within a people or an individual can have been rooted from many different factors, of which one is passionate conviction. The question, addressing passionate conviction, inquires whether it is ever sufficient for justifying knowledge claim. The question is implying whether passionate conviction alone, not including reason, is sufficient for justifying knowledge