Without opposition, there may be no flaws in one's innovation. In other words, the inventor may never recognise his or her flaws. Just look at government systems. No matter what good the government in power does for the people, the opposition will definitely find a fault. When a fault is found, the inventors correct it to make the invention more laudable. Opposition keeps inventors always on their toes to prevent them from coming out with inventions which will be deemed as dunces. Without opposition, man will move nowhere. And opposition comes in so many forms. Nature itself is one of the biggest oppositions man has encountered and is still encountering. Man has learnt to fly, produce light, conquer mountains, give sight to the blind, speech to the dumb, a sense of hearing to the deaf and done so many other things that were thought to be impossible to carry out thanks to his main opposition - nature.
Is our function in the face of consolidating purposes in the foundation of functional oppositions to oppose nature or are we in developing the sense of how to genetically enhance entities examples of Nature's finest achievements?
without opposition, any scientist can bring up any innovation which might have negative effects on the environment. opposition helps to improve the effectiveness of on innovation
Opposition helps the innovator to understand the innovation better. As per Ram and Sheth, 5 barriers would lead to opposition - 1)Usage 2) Value 3) Risk 4) Tradition 5)Image. By getting to know the barrier, innovator can improve upon the product and relaunch it may be by same brand (Which might have got negative impression in the market) or rebrand it. Quite a few brands have been rebranded due to the barriers.
Opposition can act as a indicator to improve upon existing innovation.
Sorry I did not get the chance to thank you for your answers, I stopped using this site for quite some time, and scarcely checked things when I signed in, just to upload papers. Thanks. Azhar, and Ales.