I've generally found the opposite. Polemically, a true mathematician can write theorems where every single proof is riddled with errors (actual errors, not just

I've generally found the opposite. Polemically, a true mathematician can write theorems where every single proof is riddled with errors (actual errors, not just "typos") but all results, building upon each other, are still true; a true physicist can tell you what the result of a calculation will be even if they are unable to actually do the calculation. Maybe you would call that "a mathematician's/physicist's intuition", rather than "human"?