I agree - I´m in favour of adopting a scientific approach. There is no scientific evidence in favour of full reserve banking, which is based on even greater misconceptions of how banking actually works than the mainstream theories.
Central banks are necessary to provide the lender of last resort functionality.
Meanwhile, there are several scientifically based simulations of the banking system out there, that could be used as a basis for developing a testable system to experiment on - this is completely within current technological capabilities to achieve.
If actually read the books by the inventor of the 'lender of last resort' called Walter Bagehot. He wrote on of the most famous monetary books 'Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market (1873)'.
Modern central banks constantly refer to how they 'follow Bagehot' but actually don't.
In this book he actually makes it quite clear that the 'lender of last resort' is only need in England because he says 'Getting ride of the Bank of England would be as hard as getting ride of the monarchy' (turns out its even harder).
He specifically point out in his books that a better solution would be for England to adopt a banking system like the Scottish had where the 'lender of last resort' was not needed because banks can create their own liquidity.
'Lender of last resort' was his idea how to restrict and give a clear set of rules to the central bank so it would stop causing so many crisis that were all avoid in the free banking system of Scotland.
Because what we have right now is nothing but experiments with the production system, under the guise of "monetary policy".