What does ‘dark side epistemology’ have to do with an argument that seems like a non-sequitur to you?
The arguments in the OP don’t seem like non-sequiturs, as they are assumed without evidence, not with faulty reasoning from premises. Believing one doesn’t need evidence for beliefs is what dark side epistemology is all about.
The arguments in the OP don’t seem like non-sequiturs, as they are assumed without evidence, not with faulty reasoning from premises. Believing one doesn’t need evidence for beliefs is what dark side epistemology is all about.