Does experience matter?
Scientists generally ignore experience, but what does experience mean from a social standpoint: how does culture and ritual factor in?
Well, there are paranormal things that happen, and stuff that people feel they have to do to make them happen. The fact that this stuff varies from place to place and from circumstance to circumstance tends, for me, to indicate that it isn't essential in the sense that only that ritual will do the trick. However, it might be essential in the sense that it allows participants to get into the right frame of mind.
Take an analogy: In order to score a goal in rugby, a sportsman may have developed a routine. He tees up the ball; he takes three long steps back; he looks at the goal; he takes three steps to the side and looks at the goal again; then he composes himself, takes another look and then concentrates on the ball as he makes his run up without looking at the goal; then he kicks the ball. With luck, it goes through the posts and the goal is scored. Another sportsman may have a different regime, and a third, a different regime. The result is the same: the great goal kickers may score 80-90% of the time, even though the ritual varies from kicker to kicker.
Trying to take this to the lab situation, it may be as if the experimenter wants to eliminate the ritual; he just wants the kicker to kick the ball and record what percentage of scores he makes. Maybe he'll insist that the player doesn't wear sports gear; has to stand on the spot and just kick the ball; doesn't actually operate on the rugby field, but instead in the gym; doesn't have the hushed expectancy of the crowd, and so on.
Thing is, the ritual, as Jack suspects, although it varies, may actually matter. The kicker employs it to heighten his chances of scoring. Dispensing with it and concentrating on the aim, i.e. the scoring of the goal, misses the point of the ritual. It may be that some individuals can dispense with the ritual, but the majority might not.