Thanks for the answer, Eric!
Do you have any links to these published articles?
When thinking about how to communicate this distinction to others, this is what I've come up with:
* Using the Scientific Method with n=1 is done with the purpose to apply current knowledge to the individual. E.g. the Scientific Method is used in surgery on an individual: finding medical issues through observation, questioning how they can be fixed, hypothesising through pulling evidence based research on the human body, predicting how a specific surgical procedure should help the individual, testing/performing the surgery, producing results, and finally analysing these results. The Scientific Method has been used but the outcome is not necessarily general theories, but a problem solved for the individual.
* Using the Scientific Method with n=N (large number) is done with the purpose to test hypotheses that are general statements about nature, and has to be done in a statistically significant way to ensure that it was not other factors or random noise that produced the results. E.g. an initial hypothesis of F=ma in physics needs to be tested in a controlled, statistical significant manner to support this general statement of force, mass and acceleration in nature.
Does this seem as a fair explanation? Are there any flaws in the reasoning or is there a better way to communicate these ideas in your opinion?