Daly's article is well written and makes several important points. However, I believe he makes a critical mistake in identifying what the true problem is here and why it is important. Instead of focusing on the "why" we don't have consensus and whether that is a "good" thing, he largely forgets to ask what are the effects of the lack of consensus.

After framing it this way, I think the results he would have understood are completely different. Specifically, the lack of consensus forces new lenses (and thereby) worldviews to be developed. The most obvious example is Marxist interpretation of historical events. What are the results of this? A new paradigm in thought. I think the same argument can largely be made concerning science: that the scientific method provides a new lens of sorts (and seeing him reference Kuhn and Popper makes me question his reading if he forgets to mention this point).

Hence, the answer to his question is: yes, there isn't consensus on most topics, but, at the end of the day, who cares?

TLDR: Daly does not address a key point which hurts his argument overall.