Differential privacy (DP) data synthesizers support public release of sensitive information, offering theoretical guarantees for privacy but limited evidence of utility in practical settings. Utility is typically measured as the error on representative proxy tasks, such as descriptive statistics, accuracy of trained classifiers, or performance over a query workload. The ability for these results to generalize to practitioners' experience has been questioned in a number of settings, including the U.S. Census. In this paper, we propose an evaluation methodology for synthetic data that avoids assumptions about the representativeness of proxy tasks, instead measuring the likelihood that published conclusions would change had the authors used synthetic data, a condition we call epistemic parity. Our methodology consists of reproducing empirical conclusions of peer-reviewed papers on real, publicly available data, then re-running these experiments a second time on DP synthetic data, and comparing the results. We instantiate our methodology over a benchmark of recent peer-reviewed papers that analyze public datasets in the ICPSR repository. We model quantitative claims computationally to automate the experimental workflow, and model qualitative claims by reproducing visualizations and comparing the results manually. We then generate DP synthetic datasets using multiple state-of-the-art mechanisms, and estimate the likelihood that these conclusions will hold. We find that state-of-the-art DP synthesizers are able to achieve high epistemic parity for several papers in our benchmark. However, some papers, and particularly some specific findings, are difficult to reproduce for any of the synthesizers. We advocate for a new class of mechanisms that favor stronger utility guarantees and offer privacy protection with a focus on application-specific threat models and risk-assessment.