The topic of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and the possibility that some form of alien or non-human intelligence is visiting Earth has captured immense public interest in recent years.
However, in a thought-provoking paper accepted for publication in the Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, Scottish philosopher, and professor at King’s College London, Dr. Tony Milligan, argues that this increased belief in alien visitation is fast becoming a widespread societal issue, posing challenges to science communication, government policy, and even cultural integrity.
In his forthcoming paper, Equivocal Encounters: Alien Visitation Claims as a Societal Problem, Dr. Milligan suggests the rise of social media and the increasing influence of UAP claims in public and political discourse demands a more robust response than the periodic debunking efforts traditionally employed by the scientific community.
“This belief is slightly paradoxical as we have zero evidence that aliens even exist,” Dr. Milligan wrote in an article published by The Conversation. “If beliefs of this sort, in conspiracy, concealment, and collaboration, have made it into the mainstream, then periodic debunking has simply not worked.”
Dr. Milligan contends that the alien visitation narrative, once confined to countercultural fringes and conspiracy theorists, is now making serious inroads into the political mainstream.
In the past year, the belief in alien visitation has only intensified, largely fueled by several former government officials who have claimed that the U.S. government has secretly recovered crashed vehicles of non-human origin.
In 2023, The Debrief was the first media outlet to report that David Grusch, a former Air Force officer and intelligence specialist with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), had filed an official complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG).
Grusch alleges that the U.S. government has recovered several vehicles “of exotic origin—attributed to non-human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial or otherwise unknown—based on their unique vehicle morphologies, material science analyses, and distinctive atomic arrangements and radiological signatures.”
In July 2023, Grusch reiterated his claims under oath before the Congressional Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs. In response, the Pentagon has denied that the Department of Defense (DoD) has recovered any “exotic technologies” or operates secret alien reverse engineering programs.
Because Grusch’s assertions of recovered alien craft are closely tied to classified information and national security programs, it remains virtually impossible for journalists, scientists, or the general public to verify or refute his statements.
While much of the fascination with aliens is harmless or confined to bickering on social media, Dr. Milligan argues that its expansion into mainstream belief systems can also have troubling consequences.
The persistence of these beliefs—and the increasing pressure on governments and scientific institutions to address them—has stretched beyond simple curiosity into a problem that touches various societal sectors.
Dr. Milligan suggests that the traditional approach to handling alien visitation claims—periodic public debunking—is no longer sufficient. He further argues that dismissing alien visitation narratives without engaging in deeper discourse may even be counterproductive.
“If we hold that the practice of science in a democratic society requires the answerability of the science community to sustained public concerns, then something more robust may be due,” Dr. Milligan asserts. “This will be the case even if the end story that is told (‘no aliens, no cover-up, no conspiracy’) is likely to be the same.”
The exponential rise in social media platforms has amplified the potential for unsubstantiated claims, making it harder for scientific facts to break through the “background noise” that detracts from serious scientific discourse. The focus often shifts to debunking sensational claims rather than fostering meaningful scientific dialogue.
Dr. Milligan acknowledged that social media or news outlets, like The Debrief, have played a particular role in shaping the conversation surrounding alien visitation beliefs. However, he says that science, as a whole, could do a better job addressing unscientific populism.
“There are responsibilities that all of us have. I don’t think that we could police social media even if we wanted to. It’s too big, too varied and too entrenched,” Dr. Milligan explained to The Debrief in an email. “But people from the sciences could do much more outreach and aim for a stronger ongoing presence so that people can start to see the difference between real science and plausible imitations.”
“I also think that analytic skills (especially argument building and recognition of the difference between good and bad arguments) could be taken more seriously across academia,” he added. “In recent years, it has been watered down. Pseudoscience thrives upon bad argumentation, weak analogies, fallacies, and grudge argumentation. But without a solid analytic background, it is hard for younger academics to recognize the box of tricks that get used, and so rather than being easily recognized as bad reasoning, pseudoscience can sound a lot like fearless thinking.”
In fields like biology and astronomy, where public understanding is already limited, the intrusion of alien visitation narratives can further complicate the communication of scientific findings.
“Particular difficulties get in the way of astrobiology outreach,” Dr. Milligan notes. “We are making progress towards understanding the origins, emergence, distribution, and survival of rudimentary life forms. However, discussions about ‘life’ and ‘space’ can easily be confused with storytelling about aliens crashing into hillsides.”
For Dr. Milligan, this is particularly concerning in the context of cultural astronomy—where astronomy intersects with indigenous cultures. He points out that Indigenous storytelling, which is deeply respected by many astronomers, is increasingly being muddled with alien visitation narratives. This fusion of indigenous origin stories with modern UFO claims can distort traditional narratives, making it difficult to separate fact from fiction.
“Astronomy faces a specialized problem because it requires ground infrastructure in indigenous areas where local people may have been worked over pretty badly by the ‘ancient aliens’ people and convinced that ‘the scientific establishment’ is concealing the truth about ancient indigenous technologies,” Dr. Milligan said. “Responsible siting of astronomy infrastructure draws upon a sense of the importance of cultural astronomy, but that becomes really tough when authentic cultural astronomy gets intermingled with new age tales and suspicions.”
Despite his criticisms, Dr. Milligan does not call for an immediate dismissal of the legitimate study and investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena or possible near-Earth evidence of alien life.
Instead, he advocates for a more measured yet engaged response. He suggests that while current responses may not be sufficient for much longer, it is not yet time for a full-scale paradigm shift in how science tackles the issue.
In his paper, Dr. Milligan points to scientists like Harvard’s Dr. Avi Loeb, and his establishment of the Galileo Project, or Dr. Martin Elvis, who have advocated for scientific research programs exploring alien visitation claims in a more structured manner.
In his paper, Dr. Milligan notes about the Galileo Project and Dr. Loeb, “Rather than targeting the wilder horizons of dubious testimony about abduction, they have focused upon equivocal material evidence in forms such as possible derelict craft and possible physical residues.”
Critics have suggested that Dr. Loeb’s scientific approach to hunting for alien visitors is “shaped too much by wanting to believe” and “too entangled in the kinds of populist narratives.”
However, Dr. Milligan points out that based on current attitudes towards topics like UAP or alien visitation, “it may simply be difficult to build any robust SRP program dedicated to [the] evaluation of artifact claims without involving a disproportionate number of people who also want to believe, and who have a certain attitude towards the conservatism of more mainstream lines of scientific research.”
While Dr. Milligan does not necessarily endorse scientific research programs focused solely on hunting for near-Earth alien life, he acknowledged that such programs could have merit, provided they maintain scientific rigor.
“If someone comes to me and says, ‘I have a research group of properly trained people, none of us are here because we believe in a range of weird stuff. Everyone has been screened, and nobody believes in parapsychology, Bigfoot, or a conspiracy at Roswell. What we are going to do is to look at objects like ‘Oumuamua and ask ‘is this an artifact or natural object?’ Well, that sounds ok, and they might turn out decent conference papers,” Dr. Mulligan told The Debrief. “Research programs of this sort are fundable, they add to a sense within the science community that we really have looked at what should be looked at. Really, it is just an extension of SETI, with a broadly similar set of limited expectations.”
“But this sort of program does not need massive or questionable levels of funding. The research does not need a big consortium, or the colossal effort required to image black holes,” Dr. Milligan adds. “I wouldn’t recommend that anyone devote their career to this sort of monitoring, but it would be scientific monitoring rather than pseudoscience, and even when it keeps saying ‘we looked and there is still nothing to see,’ it would still contribute to our wider understanding of why some celestial objects move in odd ways.”
Although Dr. Milligan expresses skepticism about the likelihood of alien contact, he stresses that societal beliefs around these matters are social phenomena worthy of serious attention. Even in the absence of actual visitation, the fact that so many people believe in the possibility creates ripple effects in science, government policy, and public discourse.
The philosopher cautions that any scientific programs dedicated to investigating alien visitation claims should remain firmly within the boundaries of natural science.
He proposes that future scientific inquiries meet specific minimal requirements. First, any such endeavor must hold independent value and contribute to scientific knowledge, even if no alien artifacts are found.
Second, efforts must minimize the noise surrounding these claims, maintaining a clear and objective communication strategy to prevent further sensationalism. Finally, evidential standards must be high, ensuring that any scientific claim of alien visitation adheres to the rigorous standards typically demanded by scientific inquiry.
In other words, any scientific inquiry into alien visitation should be rigorous and grounded in the same evidentiary standards applied to any other area of research. With this rigor, such programs avoid becoming entangled in pseudoscience and speculation, which would only exacerbate the societal problem he believes needs to be addressed.
Still, Dr. Milligan warns that any scientific effort to seriously examine alien visitation claims must tread carefully to avoid fueling further sensationalism. He highlights the risk that initial phases of research could inadvertently give credence to unfounded claims, leading to more noise and misinformation.
“Legitimizing pseudoscientific beliefs is a real risk. Anything that we can do might go bad. But it may be easier now, rather than later, to separate out legitimate scientific inquiry from everything else,” Dr. Milligan told The Debrief. “One way to do this is to take the most likely option for a human-alien encounter and then investigate it in line with proper scientific norms.”
Dr. Milligan concludes that while we may not need a full-scale paradigm shift just yet, scientists and policymakers must start thinking seriously about how to respond to the growing influence of alien visitation claims. The challenge, it seems, will be to address these societal beliefs without lending them undue credibility.
In an age where misinformation spreads faster than facts, Dr. Milligan’s call for a more thoughtful, robust response to alien visitation claims is more relevant than ever.
Dr. Milligan’s paper is expected to attract criticism from steadfast believers who assert that alien visitations to Earth have already occurred or are currently taking place. Recent data indicates that this group of “believers” may comprise as much as 34% of the U.S. population.
However, his core argument emphasizes the need for more verifiable scientific evidence and a reduction in unsubstantiated beliefs surrounding alien visitations. He advocates for a disciplined, evidence-based approach that prioritizes empirical data over anecdotal accounts and speculative theories.
Dr. Milligan asserts that this focus on rigorous scientific inquiry is essential not only for skeptics and debunkers who seek factual accuracy but also for devoted alien “believers” who desire credible proof to support their convictions.
By calling for a shift away from belief-driven narratives and toward systematic research, Dr. Milligan advocates for a more informed and rational discourse that benefits all parties interested in the truth behind alien visitation claims.
“I think that the first thing we do is to address the spread of these ideas within the scientific and broader academic communities by separating out what we can do real research around from all the other stuff,” Dr. Milligan explained. “We probably need a couple of working groups with interdisciplinary skills (expertise in populism and its spread, some people from the space sciences, and so on) looking at the spread of this stuff.”
“Beyond that, we can certainly have worthwhile programs looking at novel interstellar objects like ‘Oumuamua, or considering how we might remotely detect an advanced technological civilization across the immense distances of space. Work of this sort has value even when it turns out that all objects are naturally occurring objects and no known star system is showing known signs of intelligent life.”
“That’s all Carl Sagan stuff rather than Mulder stuff.”
Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan. Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com