Abstract. We review an approach to observation-theory comparisons we call \Taste-Testing."

In this approach, synthetic observations are made of numerical simulations, and then both real

and synthetic observations are \tasted" (compared) using a variety of statistical tests. We rst

lay out arguments for bringing theory to observational space rather than observations to theory

space. Next, we explain that generating synthetic observations is only a step along the way to

the quantitative, statistical, taste tests that oer the most insight. We oer a set of examples

focused on polarimetry, scattering and emission by dust, and spectral-line mapping in starforming

regions. We conclude with a discussion of the connection between statistical tests used

to date and the physics we seek to understand. In particular, we suggest that the \lognormal"

nature of molecular clouds can be created by the interaction of many random processes, as can

the lognormal nature of the IMF, so that the fact that both the \Clump Mass Function" (CMF)

and IMF appear lognormal does not necessarily imply a direct relationship between them.