Proctor's Theory Of Irrestrial Life

The debate surrounding the existence of extra-terrestrial life went through a great deal of change in the 1800's. The progression in discourse can especially be seen when comparing the work of the prolific astronomer Richard Proctor to several of his predecessors. Proctor viewed astronomy as a science much more critically, and many of his writings departed from many previously upheld ideas surrounding the plurality of worlds and the possibility of life on other planets. Proctor had the most stark difference in principles with Brewster; the two approached the very idea of science in completely different manners. Due to a lack of concrete information about the universe and other planets, support of Brewsterian theory depended heavily upon the
One of the earlier authors of the 18th century, Wright focused heavily on the idea of that the universe is infinite, being home to an innumerable number of galaxies and worlds. Of these, he estimated that there were at least 60,000,000 life-bearing planets like our own—this estimate did not even take into account how many other celestial bodies, including satellites like our moon, could also contain life. Wright was also certain that these inhabitable planets would have "terrestrial or terraqueous" conditions and be home to human beings (Crowe 135). Wright's assumption that these planets would be similar to Earth, both in form and in inhabitants, was not an uncommon opinion for the time. This assumption was most often based around the idea that life requires favorable Earth-like conditions to exist in the first place, and that the same kind of life would always be found in those conditions. Proctor, however, did not agree with this sentiment. He actually used Earth itself as support for his own claim by examining the many different conditions in which life thrived in on Earth. He noticed life existing in a multitude of places, all with differing temperatures, elevations, and elemental makeups. From this, Proctor deducted that there are no conditions known to man which "render life impossible", and nature's ability to support life has an "exceedingly wide range" (Crowe 393). Further, in
One astronomer, William Herschel, was wholly convinced that the moon contained life. In his writings, he went into great detail describing the intricacies of the lunar landscape and its life forms, even admitting that he would rather live there than Earth. Once again, Proctor's evidence-focused ideals clash with these sentiments. Whereas Herschel truly believed the moon was home to life, Proctor held a wildly different stance on the matter, instead viewing the moon almost as an existing counter-argument. Proctor saw the moon as being one of the few celestial bodies that astronomers had any reliable information on, due mostly to its close proximity to Earth. In addition, he personally saw the likelihood of the moon containing life as being extremely low. His argument follows that, because we only have decent information about two celestial bodies, one of which contains life and one that most likely does not contain any life, attempting to use the two as evidence for life existing on another body in the universe is "too slight to afford any sufficient basis for a conclusion" (Crowe 393). Compared to Herschel, who saw the mere existence of the moon as proof that it contained an abundance of life, Proctor takes a contrasting approach by suggesting that the existence of the moon actually does a lot to offset many arguments for (or