So how do propose we pick "the truth"? This is the problem we now face: Truth has been labeled relative.

Parse the wording of the statement(s) in question. Look for lapses existing between the actual language of a message and it's intended result. Wordsmith's are expert at saying nothing substantial while allowing(encouraging) the audience to perceive or project their biases to said message.

I'm curious now, mind dissecting this quote?

Ambiguous, leading statements allow a listener to assume the content in lieu of specifics.

In the spirit of the MSM's "Fake News" news lately, I submit a seemingly innocuous example: Of all of the "Supermoon" articles back in December(and priors), how many mention the fact that the closest full moonrise is indiscernable in size to the naked eye as the furthest full moonrise? Besides Phil Platt, I believe the answer is approaching 0. Yet, every MSM news site/channel promoted it as "the biggest in ~100 years", many webizens clicked the links, some even went out to watch it live and most now believe it appeared physically larger than any other full moonrise in ~100 years.

edit:added "in" to discernable.

swapped ~ for +/-.

1. Admission. "I did it" is one way. (Thinking of caught on camera) - after admission often the search for truth stops.

As an aside one strong component of a couples ability to coexist is just this: how do they interpret relative truths. And how do they gain input for truth moments.

> after admission often the search for truth stops

There is also a phenomenon of false confessions, which sometimes has to do with psychological factors and sometimes with incentives like people being punished less harshly when they accept a plea bargain.

Since this subthread is talking about Orwell, I can point out that in Orwell's most famous work the authorities were very keen to obtain false confessions.

I propose we base truth on whatever epistemological grounding that allows one to assert the truth claim of relative truth.