> you're quick to assume bad faith, which would seem to support the first point you quote
I don't think that follows. If you start with "there's no point in good faith" (paraphrase), you can't say that someone taking offense at their approach has proven their point. It doesn't DISPROVE it, and I'm not claiming I have, but it certainly doesn't prove the point, because they themselves weren't doing anything that relies on that point (which is why they used it as justification).
> their suspicion of such a problem might be labeled a "chip on their shoulder" or a "hypothesis"
Suspicion is indeed a hypothesis. Conviction is more "chip on their shoulder". At that point of the document the reader is open to the hypothesis, but has not yet seen any evidence.
> do you think either of those parts is false or is irrelevant to what they're studying?
I think if someone is trying to persuade me, extravagant up-front declarations, name calling, and labels are not the way to establish your credentials as an objective judge. I honestly am in no position to know if their suspicions are false - presumably, someone reading the paper seeking to expand their knowledge would likewise be someone ignorant or at least unconvinced (Why else read it?) Coming across as someone unreliable due to bias is not an effective way to convince that audience - it's a way to build an echo chamber.
That said, I said I wanted to revisit and plan to, once my initial impression has died down to reduce my own bias.