How many bad ideas or ambiguously true ideas do mathematicians have for every good idea they produce? How many people feel "deep certainties" about hypotheses that never pan out? Even when sometimes correct, do their hunches generally do better than chance alone would suggest? I agree with the idea that pattern recognition is important, but think your claims are going too far. My opinion is that successful pattern recognition, even in the hands of the best human experts, relies heavily on explicit reasoning that takes control over the recognition mechanisms and keeps them accurately targeted. Without cumbersome restraints that resist mental manipulations, humans are more likely to invent numerology than Calculus. Filtering out bad ideas or chains of thought that pattern recognition brings into one's head is important.

A significant reason I've had problems with advanced Calculus is that my brain starts inventing too many justifications for things, and then I become unable to distinguish between remembered rules which are valid and ones which my mind invented without sufficient justification. The difference between a superstition, a heuristic, and a rule is extremely important, but I don't think pattern recognition is well equipped to monitor thoughts to maintain these distinctions. I see pattern recognition as being about what things have in common. That has a lot to recommend it, but differences are important too. I wouldn't say either pattern recognition or reasoning are of primary importance. They're two halves of a whole, either alone is almost useless while both together can be very very strong. In my own case, it's the restrictions I find difficult, being imaginative is almost too easy for me.