I definitely agree with this, although maybe not precisely in the sense you mean. One could make an argument that, except in the furthest reaches of theoretical physics, scientists use math much more in the “plug-and-chug” style than in the “conceptual” style. However, scientists, presumably (I’ve never been much good at science myself, so I can’t say definitively) must be more conceptual within the context of their own subject matter (this is certainly the case in theoretical physics, as Hilbert’s comment on Einstein illustrates, but I assume something similar holds for the more “prosaic” sciences as well).

Of course, one must keep in mind that mathematicians tend to have a bit of an institutional disdain for scientists as mere number-crunchers, so that perspective may be coloring my comments.

p.s. I’d say Spelke is more naïve than disingenuous for thinking that because male and female babies are equally good at counting objects they will later be equally talented astrophysicists, but I would say that her main disingenuity is by following back on the old canard, which so few on her side of the debate seem to be able to resist, that even if women are temperamentally less suited to professional science than men, that probably means that the whole system of science is unfairly biased, i.e. too competition-driven, not compassionate enough, etc. This is, to put it mildly, a bit of a departure from the premises of the debate. The claim that if current science practice does favor men then we are somehow not “doing” science right just shows how pre-determined and inflexible the agenda is, which is not turning out the most highly-qualified scientists. Plus, if you throw out competition, or rather the objective criteria by which competition becomes meaningful, you have social science, in which women are indeed much more prominent, but I don’t know of too many who would brag of the achievements of the social sciences in the last hundred years relative to the physical sciences, and plus, based on my experience, in these disciplines the environment is actually a lot less compassionate and more vicious because, in the absence of objective standards of accomplishment, those involved seem to be aware that the only way they can truly distinguish themselves from their colleagues is by demolishing their reputations.