Final answer:
The notion that an indeterminate proposition is false because it is not proven true within a context is flawed. Truth is factual, not subjective, and an indeterminate proposition cannot be deemed false without considering all possibilities and logical structure.
Step-by-step explanation:
The reasoning presented about the nature of truth and the status of indeterminate propositions is problematic. To say that an indeterminate proposition is not true simply because it's not true in context does not logically lead to the conclusion that it is false. One key aspect of understanding truth is that the true nature of propositions does not depend on our ability to determine their truth value. Aristotle's theory, for example, would suggest that a proposition "A is B" is true if and only if A is B, regardless of whether we have determined its truth. Further, the argument makes an assumption of a false dichotomy, suggesting that only two options exist: true within the current context or false; this ignores the possibility of other factors that may render a proposition indeterminate yet neither exclusively false nor true.
An indeterminate proposition does not necessarily equate to falsity because truthfulness is not a personal decision but a reflection of reality. The proposition about the number of blades of grass on the White House lawn emphasizes that there exists a factual answer to a proposition, even if we are presently unaware of it. Furthermore, valid deductive inferences rely on the logical structure of the argument and the truth of the premises, so if a proposition is indeterminate, asserting its falsehood without further context or evidence falls short.