That's a great example of misinterpreting evidence—to see the evidence that light is a particle as strong evidence that it's not a wave, or vice versa, would be a misinterpretation of the evidence based on the incorrect assumption that it can't be both.
There is a single, coherent thing that light is, which produces the evidence we see. Some of that evidence is consistent with being just a wave, some is consistent with being just a particle, and yes, it's also strong evidence that it's not just a particle and not just a wave. We don't know all the details yet; "both a wave and a particle" is a pretty good approximation given our current level of knowledge, as is "sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle."
But picking the description "It's either just a wave or just a particle depending on how you feel about it, and there's no evidence that will help us because the evidence is contradictory" is wildly wrong and unscientific.
There is a single, coherent thing that light is, which produces the evidence we see. Some of that evidence is consistent with being just a wave, some is consistent with being just a particle, and yes, it's also strong evidence that it's not just a particle and not just a wave. We don't know all the details yet; "both a wave and a particle" is a pretty good approximation given our current level of knowledge, as is "sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle."
But picking the description "It's either just a wave or just a particle depending on how you feel about it, and there's no evidence that will help us because the evidence is contradictory" is wildly wrong and unscientific.