Debate

Peace and blessings! I had an argument with my friend on Saturday. He made a statement that I thought was clearly illogical, but I couldn’t put my finger on the problem. I would appreciate it if you could help me with that.
We discussed the issue of whether a moderate sign would be useful for rabbinic prohibitions, and in fact we began to discuss the question of whether the standard of proof required for rabbinic prohibitions is indeed lower than for Torah prohibitions. He wanted to explain that the reason why the standard is lower is not necessarily related to the fact that rabbinic prohibitions are easier, but rather to the fact that there is a fundamental difference between them and Torah law – they are gabra prohibitions. He wanted to say that it can be explained that gabra prohibitions do not only prohibit the action on the part of a person, and this is only a secondary result of the regulation. gabra prohibitions are essentially a command for a person to consciously treat the object of the action as forbidden (poison), and the consequence of this is that a person is also forbidden in practice to do the action, since if he does it, it is proven that from a conscious point of view he does not treat it as poison.
He argued that the advantage of this is that the prohibitions of the Sages were originally designed only for situations in which a person could control his mind and treat the act as forbidden, but in situations in which a person would not be able to feel this way, the Sages did not amend their regulation.
He explained that our brain works in a way that is not the same as statistical thinking (see Daniel Kahneman’s books), and therefore the moment a person sees a mediocre sign, then even if statistically it is not a good enough sign, from the person’s mind the doubt is simplified and he is no longer truly able to treat doubt as doubt – that would be pretense from his point of view.
Therefore, the standard of proof in rabbinic prohibitions is much lower because in Torah prohibitions, which are arbitrary prohibitions, we are still searching for the objective truth, but in rabbinic prohibitions the condition is that the person can truly develop a state of consciousness of prohibition, and therefore….
He wanted to explain based on this why doubting the rabbis is permitted even though it is a Torah prohibition according to Maimonides, based on the above principle.
Sounds like too many somersaults in the air to me – what do you think?