Uttamur T. Vīrarāghavācārya discusses the reasons for having to deal with epistemology while trying to understand dharma in the context of PMS 1.1.3: We need to deal with epistemology because there are too many disagreements about what dharma is and how to know it. Here he summarises the Lokāyata position:

The position of the Lokāyatas is [as follows]. In ordinary experience (loka), there should not be distinction between what follows the rules (nyāyya) and what does not, or not (there should be a distinction)*.
The [condition for knowing] about dharma, adharma, etc. does not exist at all.
Since it (dharma) is understood in each time different ways by the upholders of the various opinions (mata), only its absence is apprehended.
Therefore, the condition of what should be investigated?

like nyāyyānyāyyavibhāgo mā bhūt, mā vā. dharmādharmādikaṃ nāsty eva. tattanmatasthair anyathānyathā tadabhyupagamāc ca tadabhāva eva pratīyate. ataḥ kasya niṃmittaṃ parīkṣyam iti lokāyatamatasthitiḥ.

*I am puzzled by the mā vā. If this reading of the subcommentary by Uttamur T. Vīrarāghavācārya is correct, the Lokāyata position is described as altogether sceptical. They do not even maintain that there can be no distinction between nyāyya and anyāyya. How would you interpret the mā vā?