Hate is a subjective term and describes a feeling, not an objective fact. You are correct in that the author is wrong in that scientists should ignore philosophy based on his limited and ignorant article, but you are incorrect that his feelings towards philosophy is not one of hatred.
Put it this way: I can hate that which I have never experienced. I've never been raped, but I definitely hate it!
The feeling is indeed subjective. I'm not denying the hatred. I'm saying that they misunderstand the object of their hatred, confusing their cartoon notion of vegetables with the actual world of experiences that you have eating vegetables.
The may be speaking the truth when they say "I hate vegetables", but the implication that they won't like eating them doesn't logically follow because they don't actually know.
Spend time around small children and you see this pattern all the time. "I hate it!" "You haven't tried it. Here, try this." "That's good! Can I have more?"
I have two small children of my own, so I know the behaviour :-) None of what you say negates the fact that at the point in time that the child says that they hate the thing they hate, they really do. As I say, hatred is a subjective emotion not necessarily informed by objective reason.
I'm not denying the emotion or the words. I'm just saying they're wrong about what they hate, because what they hate isn't what they're saying.
If I say I hate you and your lying ways, the hate is real whether or not you've lied. But if you've never lied, then I'm not actually hating anything real, just my false idea of a real thing. I literally don't know what I'm talking about.
And now I think we've demonstrated why people hate philosophers.
Put it this way: I can hate that which I have never experienced. I've never been raped, but I definitely hate it!