>

That would be the case if everyone actually did use it “incorrectly,” but since most people who regularly talk about/deal with data treat it as a plural that argument doesn’t really work here
/u/Merlin246 (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

My fourteen points of data are no longer valid. >

!delta
Well, that was easy... I clearly didn't think enough to specify the explicit pluralization from a previous word. >

Data itself is plural. Datum is the singular. 
Is and are both are correct >

But then "datums" are a thing. >

Yes, but datums refers to multiple single pieces of information in isolation and data refers to a collection of information.  Just think of it this way: you cannot have "a data", you can only have "data". >

That makes sense to me. Use latin plural for uncountable data, but the english plural for countable datums. >

Something people don't really consciously notice about English grammar is the concept of "uncountable nouns".
These are nouns like "dirt". It doesn't matter how much dirt there is, it's never "dirts". (Similarly I said "how much" not "how many", and "is" not "are".)
A lot of these are materials, liquids, and particulates, but other examples include things like "advice", or "knowledge".
These are usually things where there's no intuitively descrete unit of singular quantity. What would "a" dirt look like? If you specify units, like "a pile of dirt", suddenly it can take singular and plural forms.
Also, confusingly, some nouns are uncountable in certain contexts. In "My truck is made of metal" and "I took a load of metal to the dump", "metal" is uncountable. However, in "ancient cultures highly valued precious metals", or "steel is a useful metal for industry" it takes a countable form.
All this is to say, I think you should probably be saying data should be considered an "uncountable singular noun", not a singular one.
I think this comes down to whether, as mentioned earlier, you can readily quantify an intuitive singular unit of data. A datum. If it sounds weird to say "the data are clear", then it's probably because it's not obvious what "there are 5 data" means. Not clear what "a datum" even refers to. If that's the case, should English abandon the notion of descrete data?
Edit: note there are also plural uncountable nouns ("the police are comming", never "a police is", or "many thanks". (There's no such thing as one singular "thank".) >

!delta
What a great thorough explanation, thanks! >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Cultist_O (25∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Data IS plural though. Datum is the singular. 
I agree it sounds awkward but it's technically correct. >

!delta
I understand technically it is plural, similar how "Deer" is plural. However, in colloquial and natural language, it doesn't (for some reason) sound plural the same way "Deer" does. 
I very vividly remember everyone saying "the data IS" and then there was this shift to "are" without explicit pluralization from a previous adjective "points of data". It is just awkward. I think data should be (and I realize I am a lowly redditor, who am I to change the dictionary) the singular for a dataset (or shortform of).
It's. So. Awkward. >

We say, "the deer is brown" when referring to one or more deer?
I think the challenge is that we don't say, "that data is" when referring to a datum. >

"The deer is brown" - there is one brown deer
"The deer are brown" - there are more than one brown deer
I think English changed data from plural to singular groups in colloquial language. ie: data = a dataset, which is composed of a collection of data points. However, there is just one dataset. Not: data = multiple datum.
This is the way I've always heard people refer to data until about 3-4 yrs ago iirc. >


This is the way I've always heard people refer to data until about 3-4 yrs ago iirc.

Is it possible that the perceived change is actually a change in your circumstances?  Like, you started studying in a technical field or something?
​
Because "data" is traditionally plural.  And it is an unambiguously plural noun from the nominative/accusative neuter singular perfect passive participle "data," from the Latin. >

Yea I went into engineering.
I just never heard it in colloquial language or in the news. "The data is in..." "the data says (not say)", etc. etc.
Seems to be everywhere now. >


Seems to be everywhere now. 

I'd say it's partially an observation bias, Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, and partially a push by data science to clear up the pronunciation. And just that society is becoming much more data driven than ever before
By my recollection Sci-fi used "data" everywhere, because it sounds and looks better than "datum". What you describe as a change was always the correct usage if you went by the dictionary
It's also confusing because what is a singular "datum"? Coming from tech, a bit is a "datum". Anything more than a single binary value is therefore "data" >

"Data is" sounds better to me, too.   But, it isn't grammatically correct. >


"Data is" sounds better to me, too. But, it isn't grammatically correct.

It's only grammatically incorrect in Latin, not English. >

So may it be. >

But…the word data has always been plural? Singular is datum, plural is data. “The data is…” is colloquially acceptable but any competent editor would change it to “the data are…” because that’s grammatically correct. Same way people use “media” as a singular but it’s actually the plural of “medium.” 
I think this is one of those things you only noticed recently and it seems incorrect to you because of that. But it’s always been the case and makes complete sense if you understand the etymology of the word. >

If everyone does it "incorrectly" then what's actually happened is language has just changed to the point that what was once incorrect is now correct.