I worded it wrongly, ultimately in the end science isn’t certain about world outside of what can be physically observed and even things that are physically observed can be affected by the black swan so not even fully certain there either. If you think otherwise go ahead and show how you can scientifically prove morality.
"prove morality", prove moral facts is not something of scientific scope, but it's a philosophical one (but that doesnt mean science doesnt have nothing to say about this topic, only means that is not possible for science determine the nature of it object in the same way science can do in positives sciences like physics, biology, etc).
Metaethics is the discipline whose one of its big concern is if there are moral facts and what are their nature. There is a lot of position someone can adopt in this debate (realism, error theory, cognitivism, non congnitivism, etc).
And there is a lot of other disciplines that their object can't be determined by science alone (epistemology, logic, aesthetics, axiology,
metaphysics, etc).
You can try imagine, e.g, that science can prove that there is such property like "knowledge" and that its possible to prove that this property has sub-properties like "belief", "truth" and "justification". This simply doesnt work. These properties are just postulated to we have a better explanatory resource of an epistemological phenomenon (not psychologist). Even a materialistic reduction of these epistemological and psychological terms to neurobiological ones or give an functionalist account is something of philosophical concern. And another problem is that endorse this positivist position of science make someone commit the naturalist fallacy (confusing causes with reasons, or quid juris with quid fact or normative with descritive dimension, etc)
At least the majority of scientific theorists dont endorse this position.