I only have a limited math background, but-

You're only looking at the symbolic part: deriving a statement from prior statements. I agree that the derivation either is correct or isn't.

But then there's the rest: the philosophy and intuition behind the symbolic manipulation. You can skip that if your goal is to use the results, but I don't think you can skip that if your goal is to develop the field.

I feel great sympathy for the mathematicians. This must be gut wrenching. It will lead to progress eventually, for sure, but right now a lot of them are in a bad place.

Edit: for readability.

You are correct, but application of that knowledge might require understanding of why the proof is correct. Maybe not in all cases. The proof is the start of the process, not the whole thing.

You can proof a lot of trivial things that nobody has bothered to proof. Then what?