Actually, there's no more disagreement among linguists than among experts in other disciplines, if you compare like with like (in as much as this can be quantified). You just have to look at exactly what about language linguists disagree.
A huge body of knowledge about individual languages, families of languages and language in general has been accumulated by linguists over the last two hundred years or so. We can describe the basic structure of any language, we can make good predictions about language acquisition, language learning, language change and language death. Sociolinguistics, dialectology, areal linguistics, comparitive linguistics, etc. have all gathered as much knowledge about language and languages as biology has about the natural world (taking into account the relative sizes of the disciplines and their subjects).
We even have some fairly uncontroversial universals like, all languages have something like nouns, verbs and most likely adjectives. All languages are acquired over a certain period of time. All languages change. All languages can be used to express any human purpose (with some limitations of vocabulary and conceptual apparatus of speakers - e.g. can't speak about computers if you don't have a word for them or if you don't know what they are even if you have a word). We know massive amounts of the different orthographies used to express various languages today and through history.
There's no more disagreement among linguists about many of these things than there's among biologists studying the classification of finches. You can read almost any introduction to linguistics and get most of the key basics covered in a similar way. In fact, you can even read de Saussure or Jespersen (from about 100 years ago) and still get a good sense about what language is about.
Of course, there are huge areas of disagreement but they mostly have to do with how to model these different findings. There are formal and functional approaches to interpreting the data. There's focus on corpus linguistics, etc. But again these differences are no more than those between different ways of looking at quantum theory or the different approaches to taxonomy in biology.
Now, the elephant in the room is Chomsky, who wields completely outsize reputation relative to his actual contribution to the study of language mostly due to his reputation in political circles (btw: most people don't know that he chose linguistics because of the political leanings of his teacher Zelig Harris). That is not to say, that his contribution is not significant. It is just not nearly as revolutionary in retrospect, as the story goes. Sure, it completely transformed the field for about 30 years, but if you look at linguistics in general, you'll find that it's much more like it was in the days of Bloomfield, than in the 1970s and 80s. Unfortunately, linguistics seems much more divided as a result because of the Chomskean tradition largely ignored other findings and reduced the scientific nature of linguistics to those that can be captured through rather constrained algorithms.
Therefore, there are many people who call themselves linguists who are unaware of the richness of our knowledge about language. But I don't think as a discipline, linguistics is in trouble. A good example is Pinker's Language Instinct. I completely disagree with the 'instinct' part of the book, but yet, I have no hesitation in recommending it to students as a basic introduction to the study of language. Simply because even with what I believe to be a completely wrong model of language, the underlying knowledge is solid enough that students learn something useful.
I've addressed different aspects of this issue here (about Chomsky), here (about language in general), here (about language knowledge) and here (about models of language).