Some great answers there.
In my view, a HR person must differentiate the term experience in a little more subtle way... What is relevant and what is not!!! Let me give you a small example.
A person X might be doing a thing for the past 30 years... So, he says that he has experience in doing something.... Great! Now the same person X might have been doing it wrong all along... So, would you, as a HR pro, really want to call that relevant experience? A competitor candidate Y has done a similar thing for the past 2 years... However, he has done it through a better application of concepts than X. So, what would be your perspective as a HR pro?
Mind you, we are not talking of 'mistakes' per se... There are many degrees between 'right' and 'wrong'. So, you might want to be cautious of that.
Lets get generic now.
As AVS rightly put it, experience has more to do with experimentation. However, what he didn't touch upon is the overall picture. Organizations typically have jobs designed around certain objectives (from a corporate viewpoint). So, experience actually looks at understanding those principles and seeing how best the purpose can be achieved. While doing so, one needs to assess how one is doing the work, why a particular methodology is chosen, what skills are required and integrate them TO WHAT WAS LEARNT/KNOWN. And like Chitra said, it results in an evolving fluidic state. Most times you might have experienced persons who are unable to 'integrate' these things. If you delink concepts and knowledge, you probably have discounted your experience to mere performing. So, again as a HR pro, you might want to understand the context better.