I brought Fermat into this in response to Steve's thought, quoted by Cory as "I don't know why all these people are dead set against biodynamics because science hasn't yet proven it. Isn't that the most interesting part of it?" I neither said, nor hinted, nor have ever thought that there was a point in which there was much doubt about the conjecture, so your response here is nonsensical, or at least completely unresponsive to what I wrote. As you note, it was fairly easy to demonstrate that it worked by plugging in numbers. But that's obviously different from being able to prove it. What was "interesting" about the conjecture, at least to mathematicians, was not that it "worked," but the search for a proof that it worked.
The analogy to biodynamics was, I thought, obvious. Only caring about the results is as perfectly understandable as "all that matters is what's in the glass" ever is. Preferring the mystery to certainty, as I suspect Steve might, is also an understandable response. But for an empiricist, what's interesting about biodynamic agriculture is not that it do or doesn't work, but why. Naturally, a required precondition for learning why is that it does work, but that's still not the same as answering the question of functionality. The rather large number of successful biodynamic wines is the apparently infinite number of correct applications of Fermat's conjecture; a demonstration of "it works" in the sense that Bruce is using. The demonstration of how it works is Wiles' proof.