To the degree we are uncertain, we must confess that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Rather there are degrees of refutability and falsification. “The sun rose today and has done so for billions of years; therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.” We would say that this inductive statement, rather than being “true” has a very low degree of refutability. In other words, in order to falsify that statement, a refutation would have to have to be of a very high order. Whereas, the statement, “the moon looks like a wheel of blue-cheese; the moon therefore is made of cheese” has a very high degree of refutability because what is required to falsify the argument would be of a very low order.
Another problem with scientific knowledge is that language itself is inadequate to the task of expressing truth. Early scientists realized this and created mathematics. However, though math is a more refined language, it is nonetheless still a language. For example, while it clear that a number can be divided into fractions to an infinite degree, we can nonetheless move from “1” to “2” instantly and without issue. In the material world, there is nothing which can be infinitely divided. At a point, matter breaks down into its constituent atomic parts which then further divide into sub-atomica, then onto a quantum stage, and possibly, etcetera. But at that point, the “thing” itself is no longer the “thing” but rather a part of what might be termed “the general composite” (matter, space, gravity, etc.). If we were attempting to generate an inductive conclusion from this, we must admit that there are no divisions whatsoever, but rather a wholeness within an implicit, universal order.
However, everything I have said must be rendered suspect by the very fact that I am using language to describe it. Any notion that a fundamental truth has been forwarded must be rubbished until such time as direct access can be obtained.