Debrief: Alien Visitation Beliefs Are “Spiraling Out of Control,” Becoming a Societal Problem, Warns Prominent Philosopher

The Debrief just posted an article and I didn't see it posted yet. The tone and the content rubbed me the wrong way.

I am open to the ~who knows~ of it all, but this tone felt reallllllly dismissive, curious to hear what you think.

Also, am I the only one that, this far in, shirks at the term 'aliens'?

Alien Visitation Beliefs Are “Spiraling Out of Control,” Becoming a Societal Problem, Warns Prominent Philosopher – The Debrief

Text: 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.

*edited to remove personal context that, in reflection, would have been unnecessarily contentious