To account for what a dogmatic discourse is,
Greek Skeptics
made use of the word "adelon" and called "adela" the subsisting entities, concealed to everyday experience and language eyes, a dogmatic discourse claims there exist, pretending they are what it says they are. Their most known way to reveal the dogmatic side of a discourse (and free the mind of what weakens its powers to keep in touch with the world around) was, therefor, to investigate its ontological commitments and show they were untenable. But it is a matter of historical fact that Greek Skeptics didn't restrict themselves to this kind of investigation. Can a discourse turn out to be dogmatic also apart from its ontological commitments ? To face the question, Greek Skeptics provided themselves with a more powerful conceptual tool (the notion of "mathema"), which allowed them to range over a wider territory and improve their hunting for "dogmas".
They called "mathemata" the objective contents of an established knowledge (what can be taught and learned), when they are taken up by opinion ("doxa", "dogma"), without being critically surveyed, and systematically organized according to methods and rules which are thought to be fixed and given once for ever ("mathesis"). Whatever a mathesis is about - the "reality", the "truth" per se or the same ways ("odoi") by which ("meta") it has attained all that - it is, however, the output of a wrong conception, which mistakes what we do when we have to explain or expound what we have found out as a result of our research - and are so forced to define and give our concepts an accurate order - with the research itself, which, constrained within the curbs of a rigid system, can't but lose its capability to communicate with the experience.