Evidence Vs Desire

I personally never cared too much about evidence in terms of choosing what I wanted to focus on in life. I decided instead that if I wanted something I'd just work for it until I had it. Regardless of how crazy it seemed or how little evidence currently existed for it. And as a result I've learned quite a lot.

Conversely I see a lot of people who refuse to even lift a finger towards a subject if there isn't pre existing evidence of its reality. I can't help but think that this is a very submissive and entitled way of going about things. Entitled because it often seems like people are waiting for reality to feed them evidence on a silver spoon before they put any effort of their own in. I think Typoz put it best by comparing it to someone saying "I won't get in the water until I learn how to swim!"

It's something I've at least seen a lot in the attitudes of pseudoskeptics when they demand evidence from a practitioner, as if somehow it's not real until they say it is. Even though their beliefs one way or another has zero impact on the abilities or lack thereof of the practitioner.

To me it seems irrational to allow reality to shape my beliefs about physics and my own capabilities. I always default to my own desires. If I can't do something my response is to vow to somehow find a way to make it work. As far as I'm concerned life is already pointless and unfair so I won't sit passively and allow myself to be rolled over by outside forces. That doesn't mean that my willpower alone will make a difference, although that is the goal, but it certainly acts as the fuel.

So I've wondered for a bit where everyone else stands on the Evidence-Desire debate? Do you think it's better to wait until you have evidence before moving forward or are you like me where you dive right into the deep end first and figure things out as you go, win or lose?