As con-pilot says, yes.
In the circumstances you describe, the real horizon substitutes very well for the artificial one. The altitude can be reasonably estimated, but you can see the ground and the surrounding terrain as well as other aircraft, so that base is covered. Speeds can be reasonably well estimated and established by an experienced pilot by power settings and visual pitch angles.
All of this notwithstanding, there are all sorts of secondary clues you can utilize that don't comprise part of your primary instruments. For example in a depressurised aircraft, the cabin altitude indicator gives some indication of true altitude. The IRS/INS/GPS systems will supply groundspeed and heading information.
For an experienced and or very aware pilot, mental trend monitoring, coupled with aerodynamic clues and an awareness of pitch and power settings should make the visual task reasonably straight forward.
In circumstances where accidents have occurred to pilots deprived of (some) basic instrumentation such as the AeroPeru 757 accident near Lima, or the Birgenair 757 accident near Puerto Plata, the crew were to a greater extent deprived of external visual cues, and were hindered by visual and audio cues and warnings that undoubtably added to their confusion.
I would go further and say that flying "by the seat of your pants" in visual conditions shouldn't present too many problems. However landing with conflicting warning signals and erroneous instrumentation at night or in poor weather requires a degree of discipline and skill that needs careful and thorough training. These scenarios are more likely and more dangerous and are more relevant to simulator training.