I’ afraid we’re not on the same page. From where to where?
What does ‘dark side epistemology’ have to do with an argument that seems like a non-sequitur to you?
I understand that believing in qualia is not sufficient to form sizable beliefs, but it is necessary, is it not?
The hell I know. There certainly are arguments that don’t involve qualia and are taken seriously by philosophy; I’m not going to be the one to tackle them all! This website might have some resources, if you’re interested.
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.
What does ‘dark side epistemology’ have to do with an argument that seems like a non-sequitur to you?
The hell I know. There certainly are arguments that don’t involve qualia and are taken seriously by philosophy; I’m not going to be the one to tackle them all! This website might have some resources, if you’re interested.
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.