There is no general answer to your question. The degree of justification needed to legitimately dismiss possible evidence for a controversial POV depends on the degree of support provided for the controversial POV, and the degree of effort put into a rationale to dismiss it. There are, however, some other general principles that apply as well.
We humans are intrinsically Bayesian thinkers. We operate off a worldview, and approach all new information with that worldview as a presupposition. This is called a “prior” in Bayesian statistics. We humans also are notoriously bad at judging the validity of our prior judgments, such that we drastically overestimate the certainty by which we should hold them. This is why, when new innovative discoveries are made in a science, it often can take a generation, for the invalidly close-minded old guard to die off, before the useful new idea is adopted. The consequence of these two realities, that we think Bayesianly, and we also drastically overstate the justification for our priors, are that we humans in general are illegitimately close-minded against innovative views that challenge anything we have embraced as “true”. It is VERY VERY common that evidences are dismissed for illegitimate rationalized non-justified reasons.
There are several more ideas that are useful to consider. One is Lakatos’ Research Programmes. Imre Lakatos proposed the best model of how science should be done, and that is to treat an approach to a science problem as a “Research Programme” which consists of a mutually supporting collection of propositions along with an associated set of research methodologies. Lakatos’ approach can also be applied to philosophical worldviews. When a conflicting set of evidence is found to a Research Programme, the Programme is not immediately discarded, instead its advocates take this data as a challenge, and they endeavor to find some way to reconcile this data to the Programme. For example, the evidence that our stellar age data showed stars older than the Big Bang model said the entire universe was, was true for decades, yet was not treated as refuting the BB, but as an open problem. Eventually the BB was modified with a growing Cosmological Constant, and the two ages now are in sync. A serious philosopher or scientist SEEKS OUT data that challenges a preferred Programme, as the way to show the Programme is useful/progressive in solving problems in the field.
The other idea to consider is Apologism. Apologism is the branch of theology whose goal is to come up with cursory plausible dismissals of contrary data, so that the minds of the faithful can bask in the Faith in calm repose, without being disturbed by considering that there may be open data challenges that their Faith does not have an answer to. Apologism was named by theological organizations as a practice, but anyone who has debated people on almost any subject, will have encountered apologists for nearly any viewpoint that humans debate. Political apologism is particularly difficult to avoid, but one will find lots of other viewpoints suffer from this too. Creationism, Anti-Global Warming, anti-vax apologism, etc – apologism is everywhere. Many of these apologists form their own groups to hone their apologism skills, and share the best apologist rhetoric in newsletters and blog sites. As a general rule, apologists do not treat their POV as a research Programme, but as unquestionable. And the purpose of their rhetoric is to prevent serious consideration of challenging data, rather than proper investigation. When an apologist calls for evidence to be dismissed, such a call is almost universally unjustified.
Note that reductive materialism is also a POV, and it also has enough apologists to also form organizations, and create newsletters and blogs to spread their apologism, calling themselves Skeptic societies and sites.
With this set of ideas and observations providing a framework to consider your question, I think we can fairly easily see the dismissal of your evidence is a case of unjustified apologism.
However, stepping back to Lakatos’ Research Programmes, one set of challenging observations is NOT enough to overturn a useful Research Programme, such as Reductive Physicalism. To do that, and justify a different paradigm that is compatible with the “less popular consciousness models” requires that there be a growing list of seemingly intractable challenges for reductive materialism, and that there be another paradigm that provides an overall more useful model for solving this suite of problems, and does not face a new different and larger suite of problems of its own.
I believe this is currently the case for reductive physicalism, and even most physicalists agree, and have become NON-reductive physicalists. Non-reductive physicalism has major coherency problems, and it also faces many challenges. For some references on the suite of problems, I can recommend:
• Susan Blackmore’s “A Very Short Introduction to Consciousness” which spells out how physicalism cannot explain consciousness. Review:https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1C1TJFIWBZ8ZQ?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
• Jaegwon Kim’s Physicalism or Something Near Enough, which admits that the last half century of debate within philosophy of mind has shown that qualia are not physical. Review:https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1LFTMUSP8VEWB?ref=pf_vv_at_pdctrvw_srp
• Daniel Stoljar’s Physicalism, which spells out how physicalism cannot deal with Hempel’s Dilemma, and the ontology of physicalism makes no sense in light of modern (quanta and relativity) physics. Review: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R13R2OUNXMIN6H?ref=pf_vv_at_pdctrvw_srp
• The data compiled by parapsychology – see the Parapsych Association’s page summarizing what is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt: https://parapsych.org/articles/36/55/what_is_the_stateoftheevidence.aspx
This is a large and diverse suite of challenges, which physicalism as a research programme has made no progress on for a century. When to shift to a different paradigm is a judgement call, but increasing numbers of philosophers and scientists have realized that it is past time to move on from physicalism.