Where's the ad hominem in saying that Oakeshott confuses inductive reasoning with political conservatism?

My conservatives? I'm picking off the leaders of conservativism one by one in this series.

Exactly. You are picking off people who YOU say are "leaders" of conservatism. But you don't lay a glove on "pragmatic conservatism" itself. I say Blue laws are a good idea, and you say some advocate of those laws is a religious wacko. Mutatis mutandis, I defend some conservative position, and you say that a "leading" advocate of that position is a greedy sonofabitch or a pedophile or a line-cutter. Who cares whether Michael Oakeshott has a clue? I mean, if one were going to debunk conservatism, one might waste some time dismissing those who defend it poorly, and calling other depraved, but then what? The practical defense still stands, because your assault has been on certain "leaders" and their arguments, and some unnamed "depraved" rich people, but not on conservatism itself.

You are right to say that attacking bad arguments is not an ad hominem argument. Maybe it's better to call it a straw man argument. You take down certain arguments and declare victory, but you don't take down the best arguments, so you have accomplished very little.

Is my game theory falsifiable? Which game theory? Game theory is not an explanation, except where conscious game-players are doing the math. In other cases, it's a predictor. I imagine it is falsifiable as Dawkins uses it. He might say, for example, that, consistent with game theory, a small percentage of birds in a flock will be aggressive. If it turns out that all birds in that flock are aggressive, his claim that bird traits can be predicted using game theory would be falsified. No?