What's arrogant is to ignore evidence when it doesn't produce the result you expect.

Curiously, however, you provide no data to do so, while ignoring ample evidence to the contrary.

What I do not understand is how they could ignore such overwhelming evidence when you presented it to them.

Prosecutors, whether out of incompetence or bad motives, have ignored evidence that they were trying the wrong person.

I thought the paper had ignored evidence that the Soviets were having their own problems in Africa.

And it ignored evidence of similar lead-exposure hazards for male workers.

As you know, it isn't, and ignores medical evidence.

I love how some people can ignore clear, unequivocal evidence if it does not agree with their own narrative.

The England management, try as they might, can hardly ignore such damning evidence.

What politician could ignore hard biochemical evidence that he is making people sick?