A proof is just an argument that something is true. Ideally, you've made an extremely strong argument, but it's still a human making a claim something is true. Plenty of published proofs have been shown to be false.
Math is scientific in the sense that you've proposed a hypothesis, and others can test it.
Difference is mathematical arguments can be shown to be provably true when exhaustively checked (which is straight forward with simpler proofs). Something you don't get with the empirical sciences.
Also the empirical part means natural phenomena needs to be involved. Math can be purely abstract.
You're making a strong argument if you believe you checked every possibility, but it's still just an argument.
If you want to escape human fallibility, I'm afraid you're going to need divine intervention. Works checked as carefully as possible still seem to frequently feature corrections.
The difference is that in mathematics you only have to check the argument. In the empirical sciences you have to both check the argument and also test the conclusion against observations
Empirical science uses both deductive logic to make predictions, and observations to check those predictions. I'm not saying that's all it involves. Not sure which part of that you disagree with
And a lot of what goes on in foundations of mathematics could be described as "testing the axioms", i.e. identifying which theorems require which axioms, what are the consequences of removing, adding, or modifying axioms, etc.
Math is scientific in the sense that you've proposed a hypothesis, and others can test it.