Oh no, not at all. The context is the whole problem, because this is an awful analogy. Maudlin confuses "I think this proposition is false, but I don't know how to prove it." with "This proposition is neither true nor false and I can prove it.", and he does it because he doesn't know what Gödel's work is about.

(Also, "I don't know a proof" is only equivalent to "There is no proof" if you're a pompous asshole that thinks you're smarter than everyone else. Learn some humility, Tim Maudlin.)