Interestingly, in some areas of knowledge, ‘It is certain’ cannot exist, as justification cannot be based upon proof, merely informed opinion. Proof is evidence that makes something an apparent fact – for example results from a photosynthesis experiment showing that light is needed for photosynthesis to occur. Despite the presumption that ‘I am certain’ can exist in every way of knowing - the individual is always able to have their own opinion - there is little possibility that a personal certainty can exist in mathematics, due to the way in which its foundations have been created. Mathematics has been created from humans, and as the creations are ‘rules’, such as the Law of Trigonometry, there is only a true or false answer. Incorrect use of the sine rule will give an invalid answer – yet we cannot be personally certain of its validity, as there is no evidence backing it up. The only available evidence is from the law itself, which is universally certain, but only self-referential. The field of mathematics has been developed away from the influences and alterations of everyday life, and so what begins as being certain, will remain this way. Einstein said:
‘As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.’ [Einstein]
Thus, you could say that ‘I am certain’ is dependent on the changing ideas of reality and is related to real life, whereas universal third person certainty doesn’t change by this.
Ethics is reliant on and based upon the problems and differences between the two statements. Within ethics, ‘It is certain’ does not exist, as ethics are the study of morals, which are based upon a psychological sense of right and wrong - not a proved one. With capital punishment, it cannot be pronounced that ‘it is certain’ that someone guilty of murder should be put to death, as there is a lack of actual proof that this is morally right – no empirical knowledge or universal logic can be placed upon this statement to make it certain, although it could, in theory, be shown that capital punishment acted as a deterrent and so, on utilitarian grounds, saved more lives than it took. In courts, the jury are asked to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the accused is guilty. Thus, even if each member of the jury is personally certain that the defendant is guilty, they do not need to prove that it is certain - just beyond reasonable doubt, which is a hazy line of precision. Yet, the very implementation of laws that condemn criminals is placing a field of universal certainty around such ethical topics. In the Netherlands, assisted suicide has been legalised, yet in England such practices remain illegal. This presents the dilemma of varying universal certainty. British law is pronouncing a certainty of the immorality of assisted euthanasia – certain to all British citizens through law, yet in the Netherlands the certainty created by a law is that assisted euthanasia is not wrong. Society has attempted to create an impersonal certainty in a region of personal conviction.
‘I am certain’ involves subjective judgement and even personal conviction to form the decision; whereas ‘it is certain’ appears on the surface to be free of subjectivity, as it is a public statement that doesn’t apply to one individual more than another. ‘I am certain’ is a personal statement about something that can be said without directly affecting the certainties of others, unlike ‘ it is certain’, which automatically assumes public opinion, as though the statement is universal truth. Universal certainty is never applicable to art because perception of beauty is subjective, and relies on personal judgement.
How can certainty be assumed regarding a piece of artwork? An artist’s creation may only be applicable to subjective conviction and personal certainty. How can objective views of certainty be given to a personal item? The artist is certain of the value of their work – both financially and artistically – yet an art critic may disregard its value completely. However, if this art critic has a heavy ‘weighting’ in the art world, then their personal certainty can become universal certainty as the ‘untrained’ public eye relies upon the critics’ feelings rather than their own, as they apparently have more experience. The authority figure seems to guide universal judgements but it is still a personal certainty, not a generalised one.
In History, most items classed as ‘it is certain’ began as someone saying ‘ I am certain’. It is important therefore to have reliable ways of knowing – such as trustworthy authority sources. However, what happens when ‘I am certain’ and ‘It is certain’ have conflicting ideas, yet both sides appear to have empirical justification for their beliefs? The authority of ‘it is certain’ is much more likely to be believed as it has been accepted as public fact - yet does this automatically mean that it is correct? Generally, authority is the main way of knowing that can successfully be used to justify both the statements. However, authority for ‘I am certain’ is based upon the perceived reliability of the person making the statement. Authority for ‘it is certain’ is based upon dependency on a text or a group of people, believed to be reliably informed. Justification by authority should be universal for ‘it is certain’, and not be unique to only particular individuals, otherwise the statement becomes ‘I am certain’, as personal conviction would have been introduced. By using Plato’s propositional knowledge rule, it is knowledge if it’s true, justified belief – and yet theoretically truth is independent of anyone’s belief and so it may in reality be false. One presumed basis for truth is that it’s logical and consistent. However, truth can become subjective – circumstance, culture and religion dictate its nature.
Justification of knowledge does not mean that the statement necessarily has to be true in society. An individual can justify knowledge that they believe in through passionate conviction – particularly in ethics where there is no ‘truth’ – without it being proved true, or even being true. The problem comes when trying to use my personal passionate conviction, and my emotions, to justify knowledge to others.
Passionate conviction can be enough to justify knowledge for an individual, but not for a universal statement. In order for a universal truth, the knowledge has to be certain – and so must be reliant upon impersonal propositional knowledge such as empirical evidence, deductive logic in maths or inductively derived scientific knowledge. To justify knowledge in order to be able to state ‘it is certain’, evidence or authority is needed.
I believe that passionate conviction is sufficient to justify an individual’s knowledge, or even public knowledge if the reliability of the source of passionate conviction is considered great enough. ‘I am certain’ differs from ‘it is certain’ as it is a personal conviction that changes with an individual – it is affected by changing realities. ‘It is certain’ is exempt from this however. Intriguingly, over time, insight, perception and creative advance help to alter ‘I am certain’ to ‘it is certain’ status in certain areas of knowledge such as History. However this would never occur in Art or Religion, as their bases are largely subjective.
