Don't fall for the homocentric fallacy

I think we're repeating the same mistake we did when we thought that the Earth is the center of the universe.

When we talk about extraterrestial life, we always think about light, carbon, water and temperatures at which the water remains liquid. I think that's a homocentric fallacy.

That kind of life is the only kind of life we know and therefore we assume that it's the only kind of life that can exist. Even though we can't really imagine any other kind of life, it doesn't mean that the universe isn't more creative.

Who's to say that life or even conscious life can't develop in rarefied interstellar plasma, in cold but under immense pressure where water can remain liquid even in freezing conditions, or life that thrives on hydrocarbons instead of water? Insisting that life should be carbon-based (why not sulfur?) or that it is always dependent on water is just as silly as saying that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Similarly, claiming that our universe is the only universe out there is homocentric. It is the only universe we know of, but there are serious theories about it being only one of the almost infinite number of universes in a multiverse. The Earth wasn't the center of the universe, it most likely isn't the only planet with life, so why should this universe be the only universe in existence?