Falsehood and nonsense

A disagreement in a shared game can only be a misunderstanding.  It may not be resolved, and the game may have some limitations as a result, but a claim that it cannot be resolved is unintelligible in the game.

You and I cannot agree on the meaning of a statement and disagree about it's truth unless we misunderstand each other.  While the meaning of a statement may comprise more than it's 'truth conditions', shared meaning implies at least shared agreement about what would make a statement true.

If we cannot agree on the meaning of a statement, we don't know what we are disagreeing about when one asserts and the other denies.

Persistent local disagreement can infect the whole game, so that we cannot understand what anything each other 'says' means.  If you insist the the world is round, and I that it is flat, our attempts to resolve this will disrupt what we mean by 'the world' and 'flat' and every other token we try to use in the 'conversation' of resolution - which will eventually break down and we will see that we weren't having a conversation at all, even one in which we can agree about our mutual incoherence.

Maybe fear of enquiry is a fear of this terminal incoherence.  A limited game may seem better than no game at all.