My aim in this paper is to critically deal with two issues confronting naturalist philosophers who want to steer a middle course between radical naturalism and total apriorism in epistemology. These issues are (1) the role of a priori in ordinary human knowledge, and (2) who succeeds and who fails in properly dealing with the skeptical challenge. I focus on the views of P. Kitcher and L. BonJour with an aim to display the strengths and weaknesses of the naturalist perspective. My conclusion is that there are prospects for a viable synthesis between a naturalist approach and old-fashioned normativity in epistemology. Moreover, it seems that neither camp is in an inherently advantageous position with regard to skeptical worries or challenges.