Both the Platonist scientist and the Aristotelian scientist are valuable contributors, IMHO. The Plato/Aristotle debate continued with Godel/Einstein and who could argue their contributions?
Today, the most notable Plato/Aristotle debate is between Penrose/Hawking who have collaborated various times over the years. They seem to spur one another on.
As an example, in the Penrose/Hawking debate it has been mentioned several times that the Aristotelian like Hawking, having received evidence to support a theory, is satisfied and wants to quit - whereas the Platonist like Penrose wants to continue until it makes sense.
The current such issue as I recall is the bridge between quantum and classical physics. Penrose says a new physics is needed to resolve the observer non-locality “paradox” and Schrodinger whereas Hawking is satisfied with the tools at hand.
So if Penrose wins and a new kind of physics is born in solving the problems – or if Hawking solves the problems with existing tools – either way – progress is made!
I am Platonist because the philosophy aligns closely to the Truth as I know Him to be. But I would never dismiss a theory offered by an Aristotelian.
Around here it's known as the Boop/Henry debate.