There’s the Scientific Method, of which most of us are aware, and then there are mathematical proofs, which I encountered briefly in triginometry classes. Just as any scientific conclusion is to be met with skepticism and peer-review, so are mathematical, er, whatevers. I’m not all too surprised that some of them can be just as territorial, prone to snootiness, and snobbery as those in other branches of academia. From this NYT article:

A leading mathematics journal has finally accepted that one of the longest-standing problems in the field — the most efficient way to pack oranges — has been conclusively solved.

That is, if you believe a computer.

The answer is what experts — and grocers — have long suspected: stacked as a pyramid. That allows each layer of oranges to sit lower, in the hollows of the layer below, and take up less space than if the oranges sat directly on top of each other.

[...] “In some cases, it’s not a good idea to verify computer proofs,” Dr. MacPherson said. “It took the effort of many mathematicians for many years, and nothing came out of it.”

Even in traditional proofs, reviewers rarely check every step, instead focusing mostly on the major points. In the end, they either believe the proof or not.

The proof is in the packing, as the grocers long have known. Some academics, really.