A debate between theory and observations?

It seems that there is in academia some debate opposing the theoreticians on one side and the observers on the other, between the creator of ideas and the gatherer of empirical data. And the debate questions which ones are the most useful to science, which ones do not spend his time and people's money on futile work.

I am afraid that such debate is nothing less than another victim of human's favorite game to create divisions where there is none. For instance, Ludwig von Bertalanffy amuses himself in noting how much theory there is actually behind any observations:

"According to widespread opinion, there is a fundamental distinction between «observed facts» on the one hand-which are the unquestionable rock bottom of science and should be collected in the greatest possible number and printed in scientific journals-and «mere theory» on the other hand, which is the product of speculation and more or less suspect. I think the first point I should emphasize is that such antithesis does not exist. As a matter of fact, when you take supposedly simple data in our field [...,] it would take hours to unravel the enormous amount of theoretical presuppositions which are necessary to form these concepts [...].
Thus even supposedly unadulterated facts of observation already are interfused with all sorts of conceptual pictures, model concepts, theories or whatever expression you choose. The choice is not whether to remain in the field of data or to theorize; the choice is only between models that are more or less abstract, generalized, near or more remote from direct observation, more or less suitable to represent observed phenomena.
On the other hand, one should not take scientific models too seriously. [...] I believe a certain amount of intellectual humility, lack of dogmatism, and good humor may go a long way to facilitate otherwise embittered debates about scientific theories and models."

Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General system theory, Chapter 7.