A human expert may be better when you're in unknown territory (i.e., something happens that doesn't fall into the domain of expertise) because then external fac

A human expert may be better when you're in unknown territory (i.e., something happens that doesn't fall into the domain of expertise) because then external factors acquired over a lifetime may prove to be more useful than textbook or algorithmic knowledge. But more importantly I _do_ know that statistical models are better at diagnosis and prediction than are human experts. Sad to say, doctors, lawyers, judges and other foolish people keep us from using them. FuturePundit summary article "Statistical Prediction Rules More Accurate Than Experts": http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001558.html http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001558.html The FuturePundit article reviews the paper: "50 Years of Successful Predictive Modeling Should Be Enough: Lessons for Philosophy of Science" by Michael A. Bishop and J. D. Trout http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2250+Years+of+Successful+Predictive+Modeling+Should+Be+Enough%22&btnG=Google+Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2250+Years+of+Succ...