Is there a fallacy for trivializing evidence?

Hello,
Is there a fallacy for considering empirical evidence trivial or not substantial?
lets say this for example:

person 1:"Tomatoes are red"
person 2: "Tomatoes are blue"
person 1: "Well we all see them red with our eyes, and there are certain chemicals inside tomatoes like lycopene and carotene that make them red"
person 2: "They are not red until you prove them to be so!"

Person 2 ignored the strong evidence provided by Person 1. Is there a fallacy for this?
Thanks.

Well, that's more of a cognitive bias than a fallacy, because they don't really argue from fallacious point of reasoning, but rather a stance of
'not knowing what they don't know'. (Dunning Kruger) I suppose it might be considered an Argumentum ad Ignorantium, but there's no valid argument here other than red/blue/blue red.

Even the claim, "Well we all see them red with our eyes, and there are certain chemicals inside tomatoes like lycopene and carotene that make them red" is an Appeal to Authority, but it can't really be considered evidence or logic without further citations, verification, or, at the very least, a strong analogy such as: Mammal blood is actually blue until oxygen is introduced whereupon it appears red.

Well denying evidence and asserting a counterclaim blindly are examples of flawed reasoning (or lack of reasoning probably), but to my knowledge there isn't a fallacy to describe that. It's simply denying evidence or acting like you haven't provided evidence in your tomatoes example. That, however, could be motivated by certain cognitive biases like the confirmation bias.