An Argument on Irrationalism

Consider a robot who has evidence of emotions; Seemingly non-emotion cannot be proved a posteriori;

So, despite the appeal of a posteriori claims like causality, they are not universal;

(But do they describe what we do not know?);

But let us claim that time travel is not refuted: it is natural; We are only refusing causal reasoning;

Now, the question goes, can we refute rationalism or irrationalism?;

I see no reason to refute rationalism, according to the view that it is a strong claim on minimalism, e.g. 'definitions'; Outside of definitions we are referring to something less universal (in reference to rationalism);

Indeed, irrationalism is a larger claim, since in some view, which is equivalent to a nominal theory, something that can be imagined to be true, all rational claims are potentially irrational; This is not true of irrationalism;

This goes to show that it is possible to have a theory that is mind dependent and reality-independent, which in my view supports coherentism, e.g. conceptualism.