I'd agree with those who say too much instruction is done "by numbers". Aside from speeds, COUNTLESS times I've had PPLs, told they're number x behind something a lot bigger & faster than them turn onto base in very dangerous proximity because "I was taught to turn base at that village" or variations thereon.
The above appears to be missing the point.
It is indeed stupid to tell a student to turn downwind at the B&Q store, turn base at the church with the green roof, etc (as I was taught).
But it is not stupid to drum into the student that he must be at 80kt on downwind (and trimmed), 75kt on base (and trimmed) and fly the final at 70kt (and trimmed). (or whatever figures are right for that type) That's what "flying by numbers" means to me. With a more complex type this will be extended to engine settings e.g. 23"/2300/10.5GPH for a cruise LOP setting which should give 138KTIAS.
Seat of the pants flying is all very well for experienced pilots who have hundreds of hours on the type, and high currency. Most PPL students have few hours on the type, many are constantly changing planes (due to poor availability, planes going "tech", etc) so they fly different types, and many have lessons so rarely that if they were qualified pilots they would probably be slightly dangerous.
I am all in favour of stripping out some 90% of the junk taught in the JAA PPL exam "ground school", but some basic technical understanding of stall speeds, and how to safely operate a plane with the proper margins, is necessary.