Rules of Jurisprudence in the Gemara

Greetings to the Honorable Rabbi:
We find in the Sages, in the Gemara and Mishnah, disputes in which the discussion does not determine the content of the disputes, but rather a specific rule that states that where there is a dispute between the two conditions, the law is as one of them. (Of course, there is no guidance regarding places where there are disputes between a majority and a minority, etc.).
For example: (Eruvin 44, page 2) “According to this language, Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said, Rabbi Yochanan said: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda – the halakha is like Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yossi – the halakha is like Rabbi Yossi, and there is no need to say Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi – the halakha is like Rabbi Yossi.”
There are certain rules of jurisprudence here, but it is not written what the parameters are according to which these rules were determined, and in fact there are several possibilities that I found in the rules of jurisprudence, one could say that: A. We assume that the beliefs of a certain Tanna are closer to the truth, and therefore we rule according to him.
on. The Gemara ruled against a particular Katana for various reasons, such as its importance or even its righteousness, and not necessarily because of the closeness of its words to the truth. An example of such a ruling can be found in the Gemara above (13:2), which said that the halakhah of the 25th century was against the 16th century because they were comfortable and wretched.
 
None of these are reasons that we would assume would be perceived in the legal world to decide according to the opinion of one or the other. I asked if so, Is there a parameter, such as something that systematically characterizes a particular Tanna, whose opinion is closer to the truth? Suppose the Torah has some particular view that on a particular matter, the mental qualities of that Tanna or his political system or any other parameter will make him more right than his fellow Tanna?
 
(In today’s terms, let’s say in a certain debate if there is a “liberal side and a conservative side” and the court sides with a liberal worldview, it will give more weight to the opinion of a scientist, let’s say, than a religious person…)
 
Thank you very much in advance. And thank you very much in general for the wonderful website and books.