Rational certitude, no matter how well founded, will never produce as forceful a conviction as non-rational certitude, e.g. the feeling of conviction that we have over beliefs that are defended by social taboo, the control of social benefits, the works of popular art, custom, or the structures of the various associations we hold dear. The certitude produced by these latter things are examples of what Aristotle would call things that are not reasonable but can obey reason.
As soon as we’re arguing it’s an indication that we’re outside the domain of the non-rational certitudes. The one allowed to get angry or dismissive in public controls them.
Any rational conviction produced by religions, the scientific establishment, or the university is relatively insignificant compared to the non-rational certitude they produce.