I think philosophers and scientists in general have the aim of understanding the world in order to achieve some level of certainty (don't think mystery is really considered a positive thing as all their attempts are aimed of addressing/solving them).

Hard to disagree with your moon example, yet to classify what we know about it as 'knowledge' which is universal and irrefutable would be logically unfounded as, again, 'the past cannot be an absolute, irrefutable guide for the future'. There is no rational basis for that.

Yes, we understand a great deal about the world we live in, but if or not it'll be the same tomorrow is just a matter of probability (which is very high in favor of it all being the 'same'), but it is not absolutely certain as the thought of it NOT being the same is also conceivable and not contradictory.