The difference between dogma and factual and/or rational assertion

 It's not just or intrinsically a difference in flexibility of thought, but in how factual that thought is, because there are, of course, conclusive statements that express a fact or an objective truth. This is one way I've found to differentiate dogma from a conclusive statement that expresses a fact or an objective truth, since it doesn't seem sufficient to me to define dogma as synonymous with inflexibility, but rather to use a statement that is also fallacious or untrue, so as to highlight the irrational nature of insisting on what is not true—that is, of, in certain cases, being inflexible, even if there is nothing primarily wrong, in an intellectual sense, in making conclusive statements that express facts. Secondarily, in these cases, only the moral or ethical question can be raised.