Disregarding evidence: Reasonable options for Newton and Rutherford?

To determine whether, and to what extent, you are justified in believing a proposition you need to consider all the relevant evidence available to you, not just some part of it. So says the "Requirement of Total Evidence" (RTE). If you violate this you are unreasonable. Are you? Two scientific cases will be presented to defend the answer: Not necessarily. The first involves Newton's argument for universal gravity, the second, Rutherford's argument for his model of the atom. These cases, it will be argued, show something important about the limitations of RTE and about reasonable belief. At the end a way of rethinking RTE will be proposed.