But you're entirely correct that even in those days, Aristotle wasn't some sort of incontrovertible source of truth for natural philosophy, but someone who should not be cast aside lightly.
As for the other poster's remark on Thomism, Carrier writes[2]: "Thomism [...] the Medieval Dumbity that consists of purely armchair, and often pseudological, theorizing about natural reality, which ignores the entirety of the sciences and pretends facts and evidence don’t matter—and even don’t exist, contradicting its every conclusion", so not sure how viable that school of thinking is.
To be clear, I totally sympathize with the skeptical cause when it comes to rooting out prejudices based on shallow religiosity. I just don't believe there is a place in rational discourse for this type of argumentation that skews towards "bierstube" mockery.
What's left is a mishmash of unrelated notions: metaphysics, ethics, axiology, and (for some reason) logic. Or whatever other slicing you want to apply; the whole point is that what's left as "philosophy" is specifically the stuff that's not locked down. Except logic, which philosophy clings to, rather than letting it live in the math department, even though geometry and arithmetic (also formerly the domain of philosophy) live there.
I agree that we ought to just call it all "philosophy" again, since we all love wisdom. Even the "scientific method" is really just a thing we all do every day, even when we're not practicing "science".
I would be careful here to distinguish between Aristotelian philosophy from Aristotelian natural science. Scholasticism, especially Thomism, is still the preferred intellectual tradition and point of reference, and rightly so, but there is no refusal to entertain whatever valid insights may be found elsewhere. It is rather that many of Aristotle's scientific explanations have fallen out of favor and been superseded.